tom_m2

You'd think that of all people, people on photo.net would have some understanding of how advertising photos are made...

I went through four Sigma 30/1.4 and all of them had serious focus problems. I then bought the Canon 28/1.8 and I'm quite happy with it. Maybe it isn't the ideal lens for architecture on a full frame camera, but for street photography and as a fast normal lens on an APS camera, it's good.

Consider the 28mm 1.8. It's a decent lens, and cropped it's quite good. For available light shots (high ISO, low DOF, slow shutter speed), any difference between the two lenses isn't going to make a difference.

Points in favor of the 17-55 on 30D: weight, size, and cost.

 

I think quality-wise, both are above the bar for just about anything you'd want to shoot.

"Tom M, digital SLRs have the shape they are to stay compatible with film SLRs. That's the way people are used to shooting. Shutter will be on the right. Lens will be in the front. Optical viewfinder behind a prism at the top of the camera. As long as there are still cameras, this arrangement will last as long as the QWERTY keyboard."

 

The ability to use the same lens with both film and digital will go away, simply because 35mm film is rapidly disappearing (35mm film was never more than an iffy weight/quality compromise anyway). And many dSLR users already can't use film because they have lenses with smaller coverage. Finally, designing lenses that work well for both film and digital is unnecessarily hard; it's no more expensive to buy separate film and digital systems than to try and make one set of lenses work for both.

 

My main point remains: optical viewfinders make no sense anymore. Would you rather carry several pounds in extra weight and sacrifice a lot of optical quality, just to have an optical viewfinder? I don't think most people would, even most professionals.

 

The shape of the new kind of camera can remain familiar. In fact, I would expect the new professional systems to look and feel like a dSLR, except that the linkage between the lens/sensor assembly and the body is purely electronic. You're probably also going to get some backwards compatibility attachment for your old lenses.

 

I don't see video as a medium term threat. High resolution is desirable, and 12Mpixel video is still way off. But if you think video is where things are going, then you sort of agree with me anyway: no digital video camera uses an SLR design, so once you go that route, you're in digital viewfinder territory.

"Maybe. But I think you're getting a little ahead of the here and now."

 

That's what people said 5 years ago, when I claimed that digital would rapidly replace film.

The 24/2.8 is a nice lens, also fairly compact. Focus is rather noisy, however. The 20/2.8 is a bit wider, bigger, heavier, but it has quiet USM focus.

 

Unless you have a good, specific reason for getting one of those, I'd just recommend getting a good zoom lens instead.

I have yet to find a Sigma 30/1.4 that has acceptable performance. Of the five different ones that I tried, all of them had awful off-center sharpness, and most of them had focus problems. I ended up getting a Canon 28/1.8 for low light. You might also consider the Canon 24/2.8, which is fairly inexpensive, light, and optically excellent.

 

The 17-40 doesn't make much sense to me: it has coverage you don't need, and it's not optimized for APS digital. I'd rather get a 17-55 or 17-85.

I think dSLR bodies are going to disappear entirely over the next decade. The whole physical design of dSLRs was driven by limitations and cost of digital sensors and electronics that apply less and less.

 

Instead of dSLR bodies, future "bodies" will likely be electronic boxes that integrate the screen, battery, storage, and image processing, but the lenses will integrate both optics and the sensor.

"A note: This is not a recommendation to the OP to buy it as I think - and wrote above - that primes are of little use to a working pro."

 

The purpose of the 28/1.8 would be to get shallow DOF in a normal perspective for APS-C and for low-light photography. It's also an easy-to-carry backup lens.

You may be a good photographer, but I'm not sure you're asking the right business questions. For a professional, everything needs to pay for itself, and you want to keep up-front costs as low as possible.

 

Unless you live in the boondocks, there's probably a reasonably well-stocked rental place nearby. In that case, it probably makes the most sense to just get a 5D and 24-105, and rent another body and any other lenses for each job until you have figured out what you need. The 90, 200, and 300 you already have are good complements for that.

 

If you do live in the boondocks, or you travel a lot, then you probably need two bodies and you need to cover more focal length range yourself. In that case, I'd go with APS-C and the 10-22, 17-85IS, and 70-200L. I'd also get a 28/1.8 "just in case" (not a great lens, but it gets the job done in a pinch). Unless you are doing sports, it probably won't make much difference which of the post-10D models you get, but dump the 10D because it doesn't take EF-S. Personally, I think an XT with a battery grip is a nice size.

Look for "light dome" or "light tent" on bhphotovideo.com

For telephoto, it's tripod or IS--it's your choice.

 

Furthermore, f2 is no replacement for IS on a telephoto--the DOF on f2 is too shallow on many shots.

You probably want a high quality standard zoom; Canon, Sigma, and others all make those for the 350D. If you pay upwards of several hundred dollars, you are probably going to get something decent. You can buy a cheap 70-300 along with that for the occasional long telephoto shot.

 

For a fixed focal length, the 50/1.8 is mainly useful for portraits. The 24/2.8, 28/1.8, and 35/2 are probably the closest Canon gets to a standard prime lens for dSLRs, but each of them has significant drawbacks.

If you're new to dSLRs, why not start off small and see how that works for you? I'd get a Rebel XT and a reasonable standard zoom (say, the 17-85IS or the new 17-55IS) and maybe something like the 35/2; that covers most standard photographic situations.

 

I don't see the APS-C sensors going away at all: the smaller sensor size is convenient and has lots of advantages, even for serious use. FF digital is going to be the medium format of the digital world.

The 28/1.8 is actually sharp, but it has significant chromatic aberration. The 35/2.0 is noisy and I have had trouble with compatibility with a Rebel XT. I have had bad experiences with the Sigma 30/1.4: it had focus problems and I have yet to find an instance of that lens that is even marginally acceptable outside the center.

 

If you're looking for a good and affordable full-frame wide-angle prime, consider the 24/2.8. If you must have a high quality modern wide-angle prime, the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 are good but expensive choices; most people, however, just use the wide angle zooms.

 

On an APS-C, I use the 28/1.8 for available light and shallow DOF, and otherwise zooms.

I'd recommend either the 17-85 IS and one of the 70/75-300 IS lenses, or the 10-22 and the 17-85 IS, depending on whether telephoto or wide angle is more important to you. If you can spend a little more and wait a little longer, consider getting the 17-55 IS and the 70-300 IS DO instead of the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS.

Let me also recommend the EF-S 10-22; it's a very good lens, and its compact size makes it quite convenient.

 

If you want primes, the only alternative you have is a FF body with some of the Canon wide-angle primes. Even if you're willing to put up with the bulk and expense, I don't believe you're getting substantially better quality that way.

 

I'm also not sure what FF would buy you. Most shooting situations with the 10-22 are stopped down to, say, f8, so it's as sharp as any lens you're gonna get, and any distortion and vignetting simply don't matter with digital cameras (since they are so easy to correct)--and the 10-22 has little to begin with.

I usually travel with a Rebel XT, an EF-S 10-22, an EF-S 17-85 IS, a 70-300 IS, and, for low light, a 28/1.8 and a 50/1.4. It's a great travel setup, and I highly recommend it. I'll probably be upgrading to the 17-55/2.8 IS and the 70-300 IS DO pretty soon.

 

I have a bunch of other lenses and bodies, but I don't usually travel with them.

 

If you really want to go with primes, I'd suggest getting a FF body; Canon's range of primes makes little sense with a 1.6x body.

The big selling point of the S3 is its larger dynamic range; its sensor is explicitly designed for that, and it's an important feature. How important it is to you, you'll have to decide for yourself.

I'm not sure that f2.8 helps you that much with pets or children in low light anyway--if they move that much, they're going to be quickly out of your plane of focus.

 

In any case, I have the answer for you: get a digital Rebel XT, put the new 17-55/2.8 IS on it, and you have the same zoom range, f2.8, IS, and a greater DOF at f2.8 :-)

Before you rush out and buy the Sigma 30/1.4, keep in mind that corner performance (well, even anything not in the center) is just awful on many samples of that lens, and that Sigma autofocus has compatibility problems with Canon in my experience.

I am a firm believer in spot meters for film (and carry a separate handheld one for use with my MF camera), but I find I rarely use them with digital cameras. I think the combination of excellent automatic exposure and the possibility of immediate visual feedback renders them less important with digital. I also rarely bother with manual on digital cameras--usually, it's Av or Tv--except when I'm taking a series of shots whose exposure needs to be consistent, or when taking pictures of fast moving subjects under specific difficult lighting conditions.

 

So, in particular if you like the size and handling of the XT, I'd stick with that.

 

Note that if you want a spot meter, you can always get a handheld one for use with the XT as well; personally, I prefer handheld spot meters anyway.

then you probably don't. The only reason to go from an XT to a 20D would be if there is something that really bugs you about the XT and that keeps causing you problems.

 

Personally, I chose the XT as my APS body deliberately over the 20D because it's the smallest and lightest. Forget about the money, I think even the added bulk and weight aren't worth it.

 

(I'm also a firm believer that a backup body is better than carrying a single body with "good build quality": all that weather sealing isn't going to help against drops on concrete, scratching the lens, electrical failure, or theft.)

You did budget for the studio flashes, background, lighting, and studio space?

 

Purely technically, I think the 5D with primes would be the obvious choice for studio portrait work.