• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Official Camera Equipment Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
mrkgoo said:
Some test shots with the 100mm Macro IS L.

If you want to see IS in action:

(these are also at iso3200 on a 7D - THIS is fairly low light photography!)

Click for 1024pix.

EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/13s, iso3200

I slightly missed focus with this one, but it's the most interesting image:

EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/13s, iso3200


EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/6s, iso3200

The last one is freaking 1/6s!

mrkgoo said:
It's also a bokeh monster:


EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso100

Very nice, mrkgoo. That 1/6th of a second shot is absolutely ridiculous. People have discounted IS in a macro lens but as been stated, it just ups the versatility of the lens by so much. Being able to shoot at such low speeds would be awesome for nature shots in failing light.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
BlueTsunami said:
People have discounted IS in a macro lens but as been stated, it just ups the versatility of the lens by so much.
IS isn't that useful for macro shots, but for regular shots, it's fantastic.
 

Hcoregamer00

The 'H' stands for hentai.
Rentahamster said:
IS isn't that useful for macro shots, but for regular shots, it's fantastic.

Exactly, IS would be great for prime lenses like the 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, and the 200mm.

I would buy an IS version of any of those lenses as long as optical quality doesn't decrease.
 
captive said:
yessir.
Always in my pack wherever i go.

Congrats. Fantastic zoom.

It's cheaper now than when i bought it last year. :(

Still hesitating with the 50-200 SWD lens. Experience with the 12-60 could help seal the deal, but I know I'd use the telephoto lens less and it's even bigger and more expensive than the 12-60.
 

Futureman

Member
Jesus. Broke my friend's Nikon N65 film camera. All I broke was a tiny piece of plastic that latched the film cover shut. $130 repair.

N65's go for ~$30 used for body only on eBay, guess I'll go that route.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Instigator said:
Still hesitating with the 50-200 SWD lens. Experience with the 12-60 could help seal the deal, but I know I'd use the telephoto lens less and it's even bigger and more expensive than the 12-60.
the 50-200 SWD is also superb. Can't say I'd recommend it unless you like telephoto landscapes, sports, birds etc.
It's also taken some very nice pics for me, got a 20x40 canvas in my house that it took.
 

JDS 1977

Banned
I hope this is the right place to ask this. I'm buying a house and need to get rid of a lot of unused stuff.

It's an amazing camera and I've taken most of my older shots with it. I just can't ever see myself dealing with film again.

So does anyone know what I could expect to get for it on ebay/craigslist?
I'm selling it with the manual, a few filters: Skylight, UV, Haze, Spot, Polarizer and also a carrying bag.

here's a pic for reference
2n9xg7m.jpg


Also I've got this Canon AE-1 I forgot I had. It's pretty slick as well and has lots of extras.

10nzzt1.jpg
 

VNZ

Member
mrkgoo: The sharpness of those iso3200 1/6s shots is just fabolous. Do you have any opinion of how the denoising in Aperture compares to Canon DPP or Adobe Camera RAW/Lightroom? That one of the areas I'm not totally crazy about in Aperture so far, but it also seems to be very dependant on the camera.

In Lightroom it's so easy to get rid of the chroma noise, which is really the only noise I have a problem with...
 

mrkgoo

Member
VNZ said:
mrkgoo: The sharpness of those iso3200 1/6s shots is just fabolous. Do you have any opinion of how the denoising in Aperture compares to Canon DPP or Adobe Camera RAW/Lightroom? That one of the areas I'm not totally crazy about in Aperture so far, but it also seems to be very dependant on the camera.

In Lightroom it's so easy to get rid of the chroma noise, which is really the only noise I have a problem with...

The denies built in to the 7D, and I suppose DPP by extension is fantastic.

Aperture is somewhat lacking in this area. On 100% view, there is a lot of 'posterization' happening in dark areas. I don't see much chroma noise, but the patchiness is ugly at 100%.

I'm not sure if it's the RAW converter or my RAW settings. To be honest, I don't know too much about RAW conversion. The denies filter seems to just blur stuff in Aperture. Fortunately, the 7D has such high resolution that noise more or less disappears at normal viewing sizes.

I have no experience with lightroom/ACR.
 

VNZ

Member
mrkgoo said:
The denies built in to the 7D, and I suppose DPP by extension is fantastic.

Aperture is somewhat lacking in this area. On 100% view, there is a lot of 'posterization' happening in dark areas. I don't see much chroma noise, but the patchiness is ugly at 100%.

I'm not sure if it's the RAW converter or my RAW settings. To be honest, I don't know too much about RAW conversion. The denies filter seems to just blur stuff in Aperture. Fortunately, the 7D has such high resolution that noise more or less disappears at normal viewing sizes.

I have no experience with lightroom/ACR.
Allright. Yeah, the Noise Reduction post-filter in Aperture is less-than-stellar, or even useless. There's some denoising taking place before all the adjustment filters, and it is somewhat tweakable (depending on camera) in the "RAW Fine Tuning" panel. But again it seems to differ quite much depending on the camera, and at any rate I'm not entirely impressed with how it handles my 500D RAWs. I wonder when there will be more news about LR3... If it introduces the advanced curve adjustments of Aperture 3 I'll probably go with it; otherwise it will be yet another "GAH ALL THESE COMPROMISES KILL ME!". :D
 
Where are you guys finding the T2is? I'm desperately trying to find one, preferably before Sunday. Going to take a roadtrip from Florida to Texas for spring break. Hopefully with a T2i with me.

I'm also going to sell my Nikon D40. What's a good price for:
Nikon D40
Stock lens
50mm F/1.8
Wireless remote
Camera bag
 
I tried out a friend's Panny Lumix GF1 with the stock 1.7 20mm pancake lens yesterday...I want one!!!

Now if I can find a way to save some cash for it...
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
killertofu said:
Where are you guys finding the T2is? I'm desperately trying to find one, preferably before Sunday. Going to take a roadtrip from Florida to Texas for spring break. Hopefully with a T2i with me.

I'm also going to sell my Nikon D40. What's a good price for:
Nikon D40
Stock lens
50mm F/1.8
Wireless remote
Camera bag

I sold my D40 for $300 and the 50mm I would try to sell for 90
 

Chorazin

Member
killertofu said:
Where are you guys finding the T2is? I'm desperately trying to find one, preferably before Sunday. Going to take a roadtrip from Florida to Texas for spring break. Hopefully with a T2i with me.

I'm also going to sell my Nikon D40. What's a good price for:
Nikon D40
Stock lens
50mm F/1.8
Wireless remote
Camera bag

Zyzyxxz said:
I sold my D40 for $300 and the 50mm I would try to sell for 90

I gotta agree with Zyzyxxz. I wouldn't sell them together because most people looking for a D40 won't understand why the 50mm "doesn't work" (a.k.a. autofocus) on the D40.

You might be able to get away with $350 for the D40 and acessories minus the 50mm, but $300 will be an easier sell.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Jtones said:
Well, I just got my Sony A200 and it's time to start taking some pics. Any tips? (Like use program mode, etc...)

Learn what it means to correctly expose and image, and how the three main factors - shutter speed, aperture, and iso - contribute to that exposure.

Then understand how each of these impact the image aside from exposure.

Keep in mind composition.


In terms of modes and stuff, those don't matter, because unless you understand the above, you won't know when and why you use each mode.

Fully automatic = camera chooses all settings
P-mode: User mode, but camera chooses exposure settings (typically shutter speed and aperture)
Av-mode (aperture priority): You choose aperture, camera chooses shutterspeed.
Tv (or S)-mode (shutter priority): You choose shutterspeed, camera chooses aperture.
M-mode (manual): you choose everything.

Again, to understand the modes and what they do, you need to understand exposure and how a camera 'sees' things.

Conclusions:

1) Learn exposure.
2) Learn the three main components of exposure and how they contribute to it (A,S,I)
3) Learn what effect the components have on the image aside from exposure, so you can understand why you would change one thing over another.

1b) Keep in mind composition - this comes with looking at your own images and looking at others, identifying what you like, and what you don't.

In regards to modes: the modes mean nothing without understanding of the above. When you reach stage 2), then you can start playing with the modes. If you understand 2), you will know which mode to use.

I found diving in at Manual or aperture/shutter priority to be the most rapid way of understanding the components, as you will make many more mistakes, but just as quickly learn how to correct them.
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Time for me to join in on the new (old) lens fun!

Just received this today...

*Click for larger


The hood is reversible and the lens cap fits on top of the reversed hood!




Here's a scale reference against a pepper shaker. Its so damn small!

Its an Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5. I am in love. Its all glass and metal, it focuses like a damn dream (purely manual focus, pure silk rotation). Best of all, I got it off Keh.com for $50! $60 when you factor in the cost of the adapter (M42 Screw Mount to EOS). Its a bit slow but its sharp from wide open and very, very sharp when stopped down. And man, being a purely 50mm shooter for a year and a half, going to 135mm is so very awkward. I'm so used to composing at a certain distance, beyond the Minimum Focus Distance of this lens. But its fun to be thrown off like this.

I'm going to try to go out and take some shots later today before sunset.
 
About to pull the trigger on my first lens purchase. After a lot of reading and debating, I think I'm going to get the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom for my Canon T1i. Haven't pulled the trigger yet, so heh if anyone has reasons to not get this, I'm all ears =)
 

VNZ

Member
Marty Chinn said:
About to pull the trigger on my first lens purchase. After a lot of reading and debating, I think I'm going to get the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom for my Canon T1i. Haven't pulled the trigger yet, so heh if anyone has reasons to not get this, I'm all ears =)
While versatile in theory, optically it is incredibly mediocre. Just take a look at the distortion, aberration, sharpness and bokeh in this review. Pretty nasty overall.

Edit: If you really want a "superzoom" lens, it might be worth comparing it to the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 (Di II VC LD Asph IF Macro!).
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
BlueTsunami said:

Here's a scale reference against a pepper shaker. Its so damn small!

I'm going to try to go out and take some shots later today before sunset.

Damn that is small for a 135mm focal length!

Anyway my D90 is coming today, I can't freaking wait! UPS said it would be here between 8AM and 7PM (seriously?). It's already 5PM so I can't wait to try it out with the 50mm I bought for it.
 

mrkgoo

Member
BlueTsunami: Congrats on the lens! Can't say I know anything about it, but I'm sure you're a wise purchaser (I guess can't complain about $50 for a new toy). Love new toys!

Marty Chinn said:
About to pull the trigger on my first lens purchase. After a lot of reading and debating, I think I'm going to get the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom for my Canon T1i. Haven't pulled the trigger yet, so heh if anyone has reasons to not get this, I'm all ears =)

This not enough to convince you?



www.photozone.de is your friend.
 

Chorazin

Member
Zyzyxxz said:
Damn that is small for a 135mm focal length!

Anyway my D90 is coming today, I can't freaking wait! UPS said it would be here between 8AM and 7PM (seriously?). It's already 5PM so I can't wait to try it out with the 50mm I bought for it.
Oh man, you're gonna love the D90, I am so deep in love with mine it's not even funny!
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
Chorazin said:
Oh man, you're gonna love the D90, I am so deep in love with mine it's not even funny!

just got it, god damn the stuff I can do with it truly makes me feel like I'm going to be able to get much better shots no matter the lighting.

The I tried using it on the highest ISO and heavy noise reduction and the shots weren't that bad when viewing on the LCD screen (need to upload to computer to get a better idea) but if I was printing 4x6 I think they would be acceptable if forced under certain conditions.

The D40 before never went above 800 ISO. Now this D90 does 1600 no problem, very reassuring. The 50mm I bought to go with it is quite sharp too when stopped down. Auto-focus operation is very quiet as well.
 
mrkgoo This not enough to convince you? [url=http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is?start=2 said:
701588cf242428d066cb6768659166e0.png
[/url]

www.photozone.de is your friend.

I've read that review, and I've read these other reviews and quotes. Most people are nowhere near down on it including review sites people have mentioned here as that review is. Also tell me what's wrong with the pictures I posted below? They look pretty good to me but maybe I'm missing something. All these differing views make it so confusing.

I understand that a zoom lens of this type has to make compromises in order to have such a wide range, but what better alternatives are there? The Tamron and Sigma seem to be rated overall worse from what I can gather. I was perfectly open to the 28-135 but based upon reading further opinions, it seems like people seemed down on that lens too and from some comparison sites, it seemed the 18-200 was sharper in some of the comparable focal lengths.

A part of it feels like I'm just trying to get a pretty good lens, but it's like someone asking if this pretty good TV should be bought and the only response is, no get a Pioneer Kuro Elite for more, or its like someone asking for a 5.1 setup and someone comes back and says spend all that money on the center speaker and buy the rest later. I know there are better lenses out there but they all seem to approach $1000 which I'm not prepared to drop at this point. So is everyone below really that wrong and the review you posted on the mark? Or is he just comparing the lens to the equivelent of a Pioneer Kuro Elite?

If I really am making a mistake, I'll continue the search and I'd like the blunt honest truth, but how much is it hyperbole? I really want to know if I'm making a bad decision here.

So overall, this lens has to be accepted for what it is: a general purpose solution which allows the photographer not to worry about fiddling around changing lenses when out traveling, but which makes inevitable optical compromises to achieve this goal. Those seeking the ultimate in technical image quality will need to look elsewhere, but as an overall package it's likely as good as any other DSLR superzoom out there. So for users looking for the convenience of such a lens, it's a perfectly good choice.

Detail Rating (out of 10)

Build quality 7.5
Ergonomics & handling 8.0
Features 8.5
Image quality 7.0
Value 7.0

Recommended (with reservations)

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/

Some people want to capture all of their memories and experiences (and still have very good quality images) without the burden of carrying a backpack full of lenses (and a tripod). And there are times when carrying a backpack and tripod is not practical or even possible. For these people and these situations, the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens is a great choice - a great travel lens. Such was the situation with my previously mentioned trip to New York City - business was the primary purpose of the trip. The 50D and 18-200 in a Think Tank Photo Digital Holster 20 went with me everywhere and were not a burden. I came back with some nice images from the trip.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

Conclusion
To sum up, the Canon 18-200mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS offers slightly better performance than we're accustomed to seeing with vacation lenses, with image stabilization thrown into a very portable form factor. Users who seek optical perfection shouldn't flock to this lens, but when used stopped down by one or two stops, it'll give fairly impressive results. On its own, it's a decent lens, but users considering replacing a kit 18-55mm IS lens with this model should consider the 55-250mm IS if they're not adverse to switching lenses, and have room for it in their bag. Between the two-lens combination there's as much and more range covered, and the optical performance between the two lenses exceeds that of the 18-200mm IS. But if you absolutely can only bring one lens, then you won't be let down by the 18-200mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1219/cat/11

I agree with Jeff. I have one on my 40D and one on my 7D. I get shots I'd never get if I had to swap lenses. I have better lenses (10-22, 17-55 f/2.8, 70-300 DO IS, 100-400L) which I use for specific purposes (17-55 most of these) but the 18-200IS is way underrated. Tried the Sigmas, too, and the Canon wins.

Having owned both and compared them directly, I can say that unless I got an exceptionally bad copy, the 28-135 is MUCH worse than the 18-200. I originally got the 18-200 and found it slightly soft, so I got the 28-135 figuring it would be better quality, with USM, and since I used that range most of the time anyway. But the IQ is noticeably worse, and even the focus speed is no better. Fortunately, I had held on to the 18-200, so I sent the 28-135 back.

the 18-200 is a very good lens for the price; quite sharp, good contrast, bokeh not bad (in fact I prefer the bokeh over the 70-200IS 2.8). IMO I would rate it higher than the 70-300IS and it has better contrast than the 100 non-IS macro.

I own one, I use it with my 500D (almost never take it off...). It's a very versatile lens that produces very acceptable images at all focal lengths. I carry it with me on vacations, when bicycling etc... I've owned the 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, and currently own 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 IS, 100-400L IS, so I know what I'm comparing the IQ with (I use the L lenses with 5DII). Granted, for example the 24-105 L IS is better, but I have no problems taking the 500D/18-200 IS combo with me when I need to travel light.

I was flipping through Scott Kelby's "Digital Photography Book" Vol 3 and there is a page about "all-in-one zooms" which really caught my eye.

Anyhow he loves the 18-200 and says he's made 20x30 inch prints with it and also used it for pro work. He says the 18-200's (all brands) are their most popular lenses. He says if he was taking a vacation it would be the first thing to go on the list. Of course he uses primes too but these lenses have a very legitimate place in almost anyone's kit. They are not "duds". He does say you need to use such a lens with some care though.

If you never heard of Scott Kelby he is a long time pro who has done every kind of photo work and written a number of books. I think he also heads up a Photoshop users group. His books are good and I respect his opinion.

He is a guy who wouldn't even take a snapshot without a tripod so it wouldn't make sense for him to approve of a bad lens.

I just ordered the 18-200 lens today. I will use the lens on the 7D. This past week I rented the EF-S 18-200, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF-S 17-55, and EF-S 15-85.

The 18-200 did better than I expected, and I plan to use this as a general super zoom.

I did some simple backyard tests with the above lenses plus my 10 year old 28-135 lens. I took some shots at 15-17mm, 50mm, 70mm, 135mm, 200mm at f5.6 and at the widest f stop supported by the lenses.

The 18-200 was good enough for my needs. The 18-200 shots did have some CA and edge softness at certain focal lengths. The CA was corrected nicely by Lightroom 3 and DPP.


3995913183_790eef5cac_b.jpg

3995905295_ed9ab01476_b.jpg
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Marty, you're right about the TV analogy. People on specialist boards will tend to upsell you stuff all the time. With Canon lenses, if you don't have an 'L' you don't have a real lens.

the 18-200IS is a fine lens if you understand why you're buying it - i.e for convenience, an all-in-one wide-telephoto lens for taking on holiday etc

You'll get great photos out of it too, and if you're bothered by some of the distortion, you can always adjust it.

I had one of the 3rd party 18-200s for a while and enjoyed it a lot. Image quality *is* important, but so is having equipment that suits your needs at the time, and too often we ignore the practicalities of life.
 
Dear PhotoGAF,

I'm using a Canon kit lens (the EF 18-55 IS) that came with my 450D, but I hate it.

It short, it's dark and it's a terrible walkaround lens. I'm constanly switching between it and my 70-300 for portrait of to reach things. Not that I don't like switching my lenses, but it's time I waste, it's more chance to get my frame dirty, and it goes the same for my lenses...

So I'm looking at multiple solutions and I need advice.

A 18-70 lens would do the job, but if it's a bit bigger (and/or shorter) it's only bonus, if the price if still budget.

Canon has the 17-85 IS USM lens, but it's f/4-5.6 so it's even darker than my kit, but the range would be perfect. Also, I can find it for 350 euros and it's my great favorite so far.

Also, there the Canon 15-85 IS USM, but it's almost twice the price: 660 euros. But I have 2mm wide bonus here...

What about Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 ? It's cheap: 300 euros and really the aperture is realy tempting. But I don't know it the AF would match the confort and the performance that USM motorisation bring.

Gaf, any advice ? Any others options ?
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
those last three are all good suggestions. The 15-85 is supposed to be a very good lens but as you say, its not super fast. Good solid walkaround though. Probably a better bet than the 17-85 but more expensive

Not sure about the 17-70. be interested to hear comments too as I'm looking for a walkaround lens for a 7D - shortlist is the 15-85 at the moment as I can get it as a kit.

edit: Can't find a 17-70 2.8, only a 17-70 2.8-4.5, or new 17-70 2.8-4OS. They do a 17-50 2.8 though (that sounds too short for you)
 
mrklaw said:
those last three are all good suggestions. The 15-85 is supposed to be a very good lens but as you say, its not super fast. Good solid walkaround though. Probably a better bet than the 17-85 but more expensive

Not sure about the 17-70. be interested to hear comments too as I'm looking for a walkaround lens for a 7D - shortlist is the 15-85 at the moment as I can get it as a kit.

edit: Can't find a 17-70 2.8, only a 17-70 2.8-4.5, or new 17-70 2.8-4OS. They do a 17-50 2.8 though (that sounds too short for you)

That's the one. And yes, the 17-50 is to short for me...

I guess I'll see if I can affoard a 15-85 lens to go to Japan next month... Though choice: spend the money on the lens to go to Japan, or spend the money in Japan :lol I'll tigh my living style for a couple of weeks...
 

mrkgoo

Member
mrklaw said:
Marty, you're right about the TV analogy. People on specialist boards will tend to upsell you stuff all the time. With Canon lenses, if you don't have an 'L' you don't have a real lens.

the 18-200IS is a fine lens if you understand why you're buying it - i.e for convenience, an all-in-one wide-telephoto lens for taking on holiday etc

You'll get great photos out of it too, and if you're bothered by some of the distortion, you can always adjust it.

I had one of the 3rd party 18-200s for a while and enjoyed it a lot. Image quality *is* important, but so is having equipment that suits your needs at the time, and too often we ignore the practicalities of life.

There is an upsell by enthusiasts for sure. Inwardly, it's a way of justifying the thousands of dollars spent on gear!

To be slightly more realistic, Pretty much ALL modern lenses are passable and way better than the needs of most people, beginner and enthusiast alike.

My main beef is that the 18-200 is that you will likely be itching for more a few months later. It's just a longer version of the kit, with probably less image quality. If and when you do get something else, you'll probably never ever use the 18-200 again. If you are ok trying to sell stuff (I was never good at that), that's fine. However, if you consider more carefully what you're getting, you can actually build a lens collection where each lens you get actually complements what you have rather than replaces.

As the reviews point out, it makes a great all-in-one. That's the advantage of such a lens. It won't take CRAP photos (that's up to the photographer). Chances are if you never pixel peep (look at 100% photos), you'll never even notice the small differences. Also quality of lenses are of diminishing returns as you go up. If this is what you need out of a lens, I'm sure it'd be fine. But like I said, if you ever wanted to move on with other lenses, you'd likely be replacing this rather than complementing. OBviously if you really want an 'all-in-one' solution, I guess it's one option.

Note, what are some of the other features about this lens that you may not care for, at least now? Does it have USM motor? Does it have a rotating front element? Is the mount metal?


I know you have probably read a lot about this lens, Marty. In fact you probably know a lot more about it than we do! Also note that maybe all the varying reviews might suggest copy-to-copy variation (not that common in my experience, but possible).

I do admit that we crazy camera-heads can lost a bit of sight in wanting things that end up being a little less than practical, but I just think there are better ways to spend $600-$700. For the same money, you could get a 50 mm f/1.4 AND a EF-S 55-250 IS. Or something.
 
UnluckyKate said:
Dear PhotoGAF,

I'm using a Canon kit lens (the EF 18-55 IS) that came with my 450D, but I hate it.

It short, it's dark and it's a terrible walkaround lens. I'm constanly switching between it and my 70-300 for portrait of to reach things. Not that I don't like switching my lenses, but it's time I waste, it's more chance to get my frame dirty, and it goes the same for my lenses...

So I'm looking at multiple solutions and I need advice.

A 18-70 lens would do the job, but if it's a bit bigger (and/or shorter) it's only bonus, if the price if still budget.

Canon has the 17-85 IS USM lens, but it's f/4-5.6 so it's even darker than my kit, but the range would be perfect. Also, I can find it for 350 euros and it's my great favorite so far.

Also, there the Canon 15-85 IS USM, but it's almost twice the price: 660 euros. But I have 2mm wide bonus here...

What about Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 ? It's cheap: 300 euros and really the aperture is realy tempting. But I don't know it the AF would match the confort and the performance that USM motorisation bring.

Gaf, any advice ? Any others options ?


I'm in the same position except i've got the 500D.

I've just ordered a 17-85 IS USM, well, won it for <£200 on Ebay :D

Should be here in the next couple of days, will let you know how I get on with it...

Have read mixed reviews but for that price, I wasn't too fussed :lol
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Even the lowliest lens will sharpen up nicely stopped down to f/7.1 or f/8. But just like being born with or acquiring a golden ear in the audiophile arena, once you run into certain issues with cheaper lenses, it'll keep nagging you till the end of time (my biggest lens peeve is ugly color cast and muddy colors in general). I feel like I need to keep fighting a green color cast in my kit lens despite all my efforts to combat it (ultimately takes a bit of post processing).
 
prettyvacant77 said:
I'm in the same position except i've got the 500D.

I've just ordered a 17-85 IS USM, well, won it for <£200 on Ebay :D

Should be here in the next couple of days, will let you know how I get on with it...

Have read mixed reviews but for that price, I wasn't too fussed :lol

I on the edge to put the cash on the table. 330 euros here... I guess I'll wait the end of march to make my mind.

Waiting for your opinion and some pictures of course !
 
mrklaw said:
Marty, you're right about the TV analogy. People on specialist boards will tend to upsell you stuff all the time. With Canon lenses, if you don't have an 'L' you don't have a real lens.

the 18-200IS is a fine lens if you understand why you're buying it - i.e for convenience, an all-in-one wide-telephoto lens for taking on holiday etc

You'll get great photos out of it too, and if you're bothered by some of the distortion, you can always adjust it.

I had one of the 3rd party 18-200s for a while and enjoyed it a lot. Image quality *is* important, but so is having equipment that suits your needs at the time, and too often we ignore the practicalities of life.

Thanks for the insight. I know this is all new to me so I'm slowly learning, but I felt like I sort of knew what I was getting into with this lens and was hoping to get more validation than it was justification. Clearly there are people here who are much more experienced and I was just hoping to make sure I wasn't make a mistake or getting a lemon or there wasn't some alternative that was comparable that was a better value or a better lens. So with so many things to look at and just how confusing it can get, I came to GAF to make sure I was getting something that was ok. So I really do appreciate what you said and the perspective you placed on it. I just couldn't tell if I really was getting the wrong lens or if I was getting something that just didn't stack up to the great lenses that cost twice as much.

mrkgoo said:
There is an upsell by enthusiasts for sure. Inwardly, it's a way of justifying the thousands of dollars spent on gear!

To be slightly more realistic, Pretty much ALL modern lenses are passable and way better than the needs of most people, beginner and enthusiast alike.

My main beef is that the 18-200 is that you will likely be itching for more a few months later. It's just a longer version of the kit, with probably less image quality. If and when you do get something else, you'll probably never ever use the 18-200 again. If you are ok trying to sell stuff (I was never good at that), that's fine. However, if you consider more carefully what you're getting, you can actually build a lens collection where each lens you get actually complements what you have rather than replaces.

As the reviews point out, it makes a great all-in-one. That's the advantage of such a lens. It won't take CRAP photos (that's up to the photographer). Chances are if you never pixel peep (look at 100% photos), you'll never even notice the small differences. Also quality of lenses are of diminishing returns as you go up. If this is what you need out of a lens, I'm sure it'd be fine. But like I said, if you ever wanted to move on with other lenses, you'd likely be replacing this rather than complementing. OBviously if you really want an 'all-in-one' solution, I guess it's one option.

Note, what are some of the other features about this lens that you may not care for, at least now? Does it have USM motor? Does it have a rotating front element? Is the mount metal?


I know you have probably read a lot about this lens, Marty. In fact you probably know a lot more about it than we do! Also note that maybe all the varying reviews might suggest copy-to-copy variation (not that common in my experience, but possible).

I do admit that we crazy camera-heads can lost a bit of sight in wanting things that end up being a little less than practical, but I just think there are better ways to spend $600-$700. For the same money, you could get a 50 mm f/1.4 AND a EF-S 55-250 IS. Or something.

It's not a USM which was one of the complaints but I think I'm ok with that for now. I wish it was, but there isn't an alternative. The Sigma seemed to be not as good by comparison even though it has HSM. It does not have a rotating front element so that's great for filters. Not sure about the mount though. I'm going into this not thinking it is my last lens, but my first. I figure with this I can branch outward and go towards specialized lenses and this will give me a better idea of what focal lengths I'll want. It may also point out where it falls short and I want improvements on too. But I also think I do want a handy lens that I can grab that is versatile. GDC is an example where I don't think I want to carry a ton of lenses because of everythinig else I'm carrying and it would be nice to have a general lens rather than swapping all the time. I also figure if it comes to it, I can sell it when I decide to move on to other lenses and this no longer fits a role. It seems like lenses in general have reasonable resale value and their value doesn't drop much over time so that's comforting to know. But right now, I still believe I'd like to have a handy all in one among my future lenses. Something I use like 80 to 90% of the time.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Marty Chinn said:
Thanks for the insight. I know this is all new to me so I'm slowly learning, but I felt like I sort of knew what I was getting into with this lens and was hoping to get more validation than it was justification. Clearly there are people here who are much more experienced and I was just hoping to make sure I wasn't make a mistake or getting a lemon or there wasn't some alternative that was comparable that was a better value or a better lens. So with so many things to look at and just how confusing it can get, I came to GAF to make sure I was getting something that was ok. So I really do appreciate what you said and the perspective you placed on it. I just couldn't tell if I really was getting the wrong lens or if I was getting something that just didn't stack up to the great lenses that cost twice as much.



It's not a USM which was one of the complaints but I think I'm ok with that for now. I wish it was, but there isn't an alternative. The Sigma seemed to be not as good by comparison even though it has HSM. It does not have a rotating front element so that's great for filters. Not sure about the mount though. I'm going into this not thinking it is my last lens, but my first. I figure with this I can branch outward and go towards specialized lenses and this will give me a better idea of what focal lengths I'll want. It may also point out where it falls short and I want improvements on too. But I also think I do want a handy lens that I can grab that is versatile. GDC is an example where I don't think I want to carry a ton of lenses because of everythinig else I'm carrying and it would be nice to have a general lens rather than swapping all the time. I also figure if it comes to it, I can sell it when I decide to move on to other lenses and this no longer fits a role. It seems like lenses in general have reasonable resale value and their value doesn't drop much over time so that's comforting to know. But right now, I still believe I'd like to have a handy all in one among my future lenses. Something I use like 80 to 90% of the time.
I know you've probably looked into it, but why not the 15-85mmIS?

It would be one I'd consider if I weren't burnt out on cheap efs builds. Not sure about the cost difference though.

I do understand the value of a good all around lens - my efs 17-55 suited this purpose and I've probably taken nearly Hal of all my images with that. The versatility of it is amazing.
 

Hcoregamer00

The 'H' stands for hentai.
UnluckyKate said:
Also, there the Canon 15-85 IS USM, but it's almost twice the price: 660 euros. But I have 2mm wide bonus here...

Get that one, it has 4 stops IS, aspherical elements, great sharpness, and a nice design.
 
mrkgoo said:
I know you've probably looked into it, but why not the 15-85mmIS?

It would be one I'd consider if I weren't burnt out on cheap efs builds. Not sure about the cost difference though.

I do understand the value of a good all around lens - my efs 17-55 suited this purpose and I've probably taken nearly Hal of all my images with that. The versatility of it is amazing.

I haven't looked into it much but it does cost $200 more than the 18-200 and I'm afraid the reach might not be far enough for my usage.
 

Hcoregamer00

The 'H' stands for hentai.
mrklaw said:
Marty, you're right about the TV analogy. People on specialist boards will tend to upsell you stuff all the time. With Canon lenses, if you don't have an 'L' you don't have a real lens.

Yeah, the people on the specialist boards are pretty bad. L lenses are fine, but for most amateurs, it is too much. I do not recommend an L class lens unless a photographer gets their feet wet and get a good idea of what they want. The higher you go in lens class, the more specialized they become.

That is why I was pretty adamant in pointing to the 28-135, since I perceive the lens as a great beginner lens that has an amazing price on the secondhand market. I am a little weary in recommending lenses without USM because it really does a whole world of difference in terms of lens reliability.

Here is what I think would be good Canon lenses for beginners.

Cheap, nice lenses
EF 50mm F1.8
EF 28-135mm (secondhand)

Quality, better lenses
EF-S 15-85mm

Once you know what you generally take pictures of, go ahead and move up a class and start buying more expensive lenses, but I don't recommend it unless the person gets their feet wet first.

For example, I started with a kit lens for the XSi. I then moved to the 28-135mm. After using the lens for a long time, I realized that I really don't need the high end of the lens and wanted a better lens that was capable in low lighting. That is why I jumped to the 24-70L, I also paired it with an 85mm f1.8 for the longer distances. In all honesty, I am very happy with my lenses right now, and the only lenses I would consider buying are primes after they go through a development revision (I am looking at you 50 f1.4)

Marty Chinn said:
I haven't looked into it much but it does cost $200 more than the 18-200 and I'm afraid the reach might not be far enough for my usage.

Optically the EF-S 15-85mm is one of the best lenses that you can buy for a crop camera. If you are too far, use your body as the zoom. You wont regret it since it is probably one of the best lenses you can buy at the moment.

Heck, I think optically the lens is probably better than my 24-70L, and that is quite an endorsement.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Marty Chinn said:
I haven't looked into it much but it does cost $200 more than the 18-200 and I'm afraid the reach might not be far enough for my usage.

If reach is important, I suggest a cheaper tele like the EFS 55-250 IS (heard good things about that) for $240. I know it's two lenses, which is not what you want, but it may be a better idea in regards to just 'trying out' an initial lens selection to see what you like the most. You might find you don't mind switching, or that you really hate switching, and opt for the 18-200 anyway.

Part of what I like about the 15-85 is the 15mm end. Wide, wide, wide!

At any rate, it's all a learning experience, so don't take what I say with too much credence, as everyone has different preferences and needs. I guess if you're good to sell lenses, then there's probably no harm in trying out the 18-200 first and seeing where to go from there if you have to.
 
Hcoregamer00 said:
Optically the EF-S 15-85mm is one of the best lenses that you can buy for a crop camera. If you are too far, use your body as the zoom. You wont regret it since it is probably one of the best lenses you can buy at the moment.

Heck, I think optically the lens is probably better than my 24-70L, and that is quite an endorsement.

Based on my habits in the past, I have been the type of person who doesn't like to zoom when I don't have to and I do use my body as the zoom when it is feasible. However, there have been many times in the past where it is not feasible and I think that's why I do feel like I want something with a nice range on it for those cases. For example, at GDC, or Comic-Con, you can't use your body to zoom while at a panel or keynote address because you're in your fixed seat. At Comic-Con it can be crowded so you might not be able to maneuver to where it would be optimal. At a hockey game, again you can't manuever yourself to a better position. When I was in Europe, there were places where I was bound by railing and I couldn't get any closer. Its situations like these where it would have been nice to have extra range. I think I've gotten in to the habit of positioning myself when possible because I know with zoom, you also invite the possibility of blurring the shot more which is why a good IS is important to me too.

What does worry me about the 28mm focal length is how far I need to step back for some things. A friend of my pointed out that I should experiement with my existing lens about the range of 28mm and see if I feel happy about where I have to position myself. I stood in a pretty reasonably sized room at an office and I couldn't even get the whole wall from quite a bit of distance from it so I'm not so sure if 28mm will cut it for me right now.
 

Chorazin

Member
Marty Chinn said:
A part of it feels like I'm just trying to get a pretty good lens, but it's like someone asking if this pretty good TV should be bought and the only response is, no get a Pioneer Kuro Elite for more, or its like someone asking for a 5.1 setup and someone comes back and says spend all that money on the center speaker and buy the rest later. I know there are better lenses out there but they all seem to approach $1000 which I'm not prepared to drop at this point. So is everyone below really that wrong and the review you posted on the mark? Or is he just comparing the lens to the equivelent of a Pioneer Kuro Elite?

Dude, get the 18-200mm that you really want. But no one here knows what you want and need out of a lens but you. If you go with two lenses like a few dudes here mention, the first time and anytime after you miss a far away shot because you were switching lenses you're going to be mad as hell and not have as much fun shooting. The sharpness and ect. you'll see in post aren't going to matter if you never get the shot in the first place.

I reeeeeealy want an 18-200 lens too, but right now I can't afford it since I just bought the D90. Some day....some day.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Chorazin said:
Dude, get the 18-200mm that you really want. But no one here knows what you want and need out of a lens but you. If you go with two lenses like a few dudes here mention, the first time and anytime after you miss a far away shot because you were switching lenses you're going to be mad as hell and not have as much fun shooting. The sharpness and ect. you'll see in post aren't going to matter if you never get the shot in the first place.

I reeeeeealy want an 18-200 lens too, but right now I can't afford it since I just bought the D90. Some day....some day.

This is definitely true. No better way to ruin a shot than to not take it.

Like I said, if you're dead set that you want this, get it. A lens is a lens - we can only speak for ourselves.

Personally, I hate changing, and typically resort to not taking a shot even if I have the lens on me. I'm more of an opportunistic shooter. I'm sure I've missed loads of good shots because I couldn't change. But I'm also a stickler for quality, so I find the compromise that best suits me.

That said, for me, this is a hobby and all about fun. I live and learn, and if I miss a great shot, it's not the end of the world for me, I figure it out later and move on.
 

Hcoregamer00

The 'H' stands for hentai.
Marty Chinn said:
Based on my habits in the past, I have been the type of person who doesn't like to zoom when I don't have to and I do use my body as the zoom when it is feasible. However, there have been many times in the past where it is not feasible and I think that's why I do feel like I want something with a nice range on it for those cases. For example, at GDC, or Comic-Con, you can't use your body to zoom while at a panel or keynote address because you're in your fixed seat. At Comic-Con it can be crowded so you might not be able to maneuver to where it would be optimal. At a hockey game, again you can't manuever yourself to a better position. When I was in Europe, there were places where I was bound by railing and I couldn't get any closer. Its situations like these where it would have been nice to have extra range. I think I've gotten in to the habit of positioning myself when possible because I know with zoom, you also invite the possibility of blurring the shot more which is why a good IS is important to me too.

What does worry me about the 28mm focal length is how far I need to step back for some things. A friend of my pointed out that I should experiement with my existing lens about the range of 28mm and see if I feel happy about where I have to position myself. I stood in a pretty reasonably sized room at an office and I couldn't even get the whole wall from quite a bit of distance from it so I'm not so sure if 28mm will cut it for me right now.

I see, you seem to be dead set on the the lens, buy it and enjoy it.

The most important thing is the picture, and if you feel that it is a proper tool to help you, more power to you.

mrkgoo said:
This is definitely true. No better way to ruin a shot than to not take it.

Like I said, if you're dead set that you want this, get it. A lens is a lens - we can only speak for ourselves.

Personally, I hate changing, and typically resort to not taking a shot even if I have the lens on me. I'm more of an opportunistic shooter. I'm sure I've missed loads of good shots because I couldn't change. But I'm also a stickler for quality, so I find the compromise that best suits me.

That said, for me, this is a hobby and all about fun. I live and learn, and if I miss a great shot, it's not the end of the world for me, I figure it out later and move on.

When I have a lens on, I don't change it. I have a 24-70L and it will not leave my lens. I will not just justify mine, I am just lazy :p

But I agree, it is all about the fun behind it, the lens is a tool for the fun.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
buy the 18-200, then pay attention down the line to what focal lengths you're really using. If you find yourself using 18-50 a lot, then later on you can always upgrade to a nice 18-50 2.8 zoom as a walkaround lens. If you use much longer lengths a lot, then something like the 70-200 f4
 
captive said:
the 50-200 SWD is also superb. Can't say I'd recommend it unless you like telephoto landscapes, sports, birds etc.
It's also taken some very nice pics for me, got a 20x40 canvas in my house that it took.

The non-SWD version is also a possibility... if I can find it.
 

Momar

aka Ryder
Just bought a Canon 50D! I thought I'd wait for a 60D, but apparently it may not be coming after all (so sayeth canonrumors.com).

Any recommendations for a good CF card? I think 8 GB should suffice.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Momar said:
Just bought a Canon 50D! I thought I'd wait for a 60D, but apparently it may not be coming after all (so sayeth canonrumors.com).

Any recommendations for a good CF card? I think 8 GB should suffice.

I always go San Disk, but even they can fail sometimes.
 
I have a couple questions for a beginner.

I got some good suggestions from mrkgoo in the photography thread, but he suggested I ask here for other recommendations.

I'm looking to spend $500 or less on an entry level DSLR to upgrade from my Sony point and shoot. Are there any recommendations on brands for a beginner?

I realize that with the more "beginner-like" camera I get, the faster I will outgrow it, but that's fine with me for the time being. I have a baby on the way (which is kind of what is prompting this in the first place) so I'm on a bit of a budget. I don't even mind buying an older model that would still take nicer pictures than my Sony and allow me to learn the basics.

Should I be opposed to a used camera in good shape? If buying used, are there any red flags to look out for? Are there any places to get a good deal?

Thanks for your help!
 

mrkgoo

Member
JLateralus said:
I have a couple questions for a beginner.

I got some good suggestions from mrkgoo in the photography thread, but he suggested I ask here for other recommendations.

I'm looking to spend $500 or less on an entry level DSLR to upgrade from my Sony point and shoot. Are there any recommendations on brands for a beginner?

I realize that with the more "beginner-like" camera I get, the faster I will outgrow it, but that's fine with me for the time being. I have a baby on the way (which is kind of what is prompting this in the first place) so I'm on a bit of a budget. I don't even mind buying an older model that would still take nicer pictures than my Sony and allow me to learn the basics.

Should I be opposed to a used camera in good shape? If buying used, are there any red flags to look out for? Are there any places to get a good deal?

Thanks for your help!

It's actually pretty difficult to grow out of even an entry-level dSLR. The camera is a tool. Modern entry level dSLRs are choc-full of all the features you'd need. In fact, even more so than the 350D (Rebel XT) that I started with. Ask BlueTsunami, perhaps the most well versed in enthusiast camera gear, and he's still running the 350D.

For most people, there's very little a modern entry-level camera can't do that the higher ends can. For the most part, the cameras are better than the photographers that use them, and many of us upgrade not really needing the higher features.

The best thing about photography is that there is ALWAYS new techniques to learn, regardless of your skill level, and always areas to expand and improve. The gear is actually the least of that space.

As for used - cameras are rated for a certain shutter count. That doesn't mean they will explode after reaching that shutter count, but just that the manufacturer's build to a certain specification - entry levels are closer to 50,000, maybe 100,000 actuations.

For comparison, I have been through two point and shoots, 3 SLRS, and I on;y have around 35,000 images in my photo library :lol (although I have deleted probably as much as 50% of that).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom