goran1

The ergonomics of the XTi have been improved over the 350D. The changes are minimal, but noticable when holding and working with the camera. If you add the battery grip you have a very solid package. The 20D wins in this category though, although the advantage is not essential in terms of user satisfaction or quality of output.

The 400D feels like an improved package, dispite the lower build quality. And it has a sensor cleaning system. I'd go with that.

I love my 50 1.4:) That's why I fuss so much about finding a "new 50" for the 1.6:).

Maybe you could do a similar test between the 35L and the 28 1.8?

Thanks

The Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF) would my choice of a non Canon zoom in this range.

Here are a few reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=245&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-nov-04.shtml

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17_35_review.html

Add a 50 mm 1.8 to that and you'll have a great package.

"What are you planning to shoot? I ask this because if it is people shots the soft corners of the 28 f1.8 may not be much of a concern and the USM would be a definite plus. On the other hand for landscape and travel, the size and edge to edge quality and contrast of the 35 could make it a good choice."

I wish to use it as a general walkaround lens, one that'll be most on my camera. I have the 50 for people shots, so I suppose it's street photography, low light indoor events and such.

Shouldn't the sharpness of the 28 1.8 match the 35 2.0 when stopped down a bit?

The math regarding the difference in F stops is relative. For me there is a difference between 1.4 and 2.0. It's the difference between a blurry mess and a more or less ok shot in low light:)

...I'm guessing that the colors and contrast of the 28 1.8 should be more or less similar to that on the 50 1.4. I wonder how similar the Sigma 30 is in this regard.

I suppose the image quality alone isn't the decisive factor in choosing one over the other. The 1.4 is a bit better though and the bokeh is much nicer.

The real reason for spending a few more $ on the 1.4 is that you'll end up with a really great and fast prime that focuses fast and gives one a great feeling of confidence when working with it.

They don't put this one on promo shots of the 5d for nothing:)

Good luck with your back!

James C:

The 24-70 is very interesting, but it's also HUGE, at least in comparisson with the primes. I tugged one around on a weekend trip and I at times I felt like the tourist attraction:)

Yakim, Drew:

The 28 1.8 sounds like a sure thing, thanks for confirming that. Although saving up for the 35L sounds like the big master plan.

A. Taner:

So the image quality of your Sigma 30 isn't anywhere near the 35L?

Rainer:

Why would you swap it exactly? Colors, speed?

Dan M:

The difference in stops is considerable if you compare 1.4 and 2.0. That's what I was doing and when working in low light conditions, I feel that when under 2.0, I can still use ISO 800 and hold the camera steady enough. BUT I'm willing to give up the 1.4 for 1.8 without sweating about it. But let's say the f stops beetween these lenses aren't the deal- maker or breaker.

I had a typo in the original post. I'd like a lens that can match the 50 1.4 in terms of speed, colors and sharpness. I'm not entierly satisfied the 28 1.8 does that. The Sigma sounds like it can, however I would like some peace of mind after the purchase that I do have a top of the line product in my hands, not something I need to test extensively in order to ascertain weather it works or not.

Maybe I should be asking if the potential rewards of experimenting with the Sigma are worth the risks?

And I suppose the second question should be: can you live with a 28 1.8 or the Sigma after being spoiled by the 35L? I rather buy it tomorrow then go on through months of mediocre satisfation with it's cheaper siblings.

Thanks for your replies. They are very helpful.

PREFACE

I've solved the ultra wide end question with the 10-20mm solution. The tele end

was also relatively easy to figure out. Now I cannot delay the most troublesome

lens choice question: what should I decided on as my 50mm 1.4 replacement on a

1.6 sensor.

I've read just about everything one can find on the internet in this regard.

I've looked at my pictures and reflected on my style of shooting. And I've also

tested the L grade zooms many choose over a prime as their walkaround solution.

THE ZOOMS

Although I really liked the 16-35L, I decided against it for two reasons: the

speed, which is just not high enough for low light conditions, and the EU price

tag of $2.000 that I'm not prepared to fork over. The 17/40L is out on account

of low speed. Now I don't appreciate zooms much and if any I would be picking

between the two mentioned above, but I decided against them.

THE IDEAL

Now I would buy a 35 1.4L in a heartbeat and I wouldn't never again login to a

web forum feeling like Special Agent Mulder seeking answers to unknown mysteries

in order to find his long lost sister. I'd sleep easy knowing I have the best

and would spread the gospel to anyone feeling the way I do now, that the 35L is

the only real way to go. BUT....it's out of my designated budget, especially

since I'm not a pro.

THE CHOISES

Now...after I removed the tempting goods from my list of choices, I ended up

with a selection of lenses that are all interesting, but somehow not designed

for the part I with to cast them for. These would be the canon 28 1.8 and the 35

2.0, although I think f2 would be too slow for evening walks around town and

indoor gatherings without a flash, hence bye bye to the 28 and 24 2.8.

I've read a lot of comparissons between the 28 1.8 and the 35 f2 and it appears

there are great fan bases for both. My impression was, especially after

reviewing images on pbase and flickr that the 35 f2 is a touch more popular and

higher regarded in terms of optical quality. But then again, I couldn't find a

clear verdict, every test you read swings the vote in favour of one or the

other. The same can be said about user reviews.

If choosing between the two, I have more confidence in the 35 f2, but would miss

the extra stop. However here's my most troubling dilemma; none of the two were

designed for being a 50mm FOV 1.4 lens on a 1.6 crop dslr. I wont go into that,

but like with everything, the intended use is always reflected in the output of

a design process.

THE DILEMMA

AND then came along the lens that was designed just for this purpose. The sigma

30mm 1.4. Yes, it's an ef-S mount, but so is my camera. It's a touch cheaper

then the 28 1.8 and has that extra stop that I find extremely handy (one of the

key reasons I find the 35L so alluring). It has a better focusing system then

the 35 f2 and is probably on par with the USM on the 28 canon. There are many

reports of great optical output and examples thereof on the aforementioned photo

sharing websites.

THE DOWNSIDE - quality control issues with Sigma, but I suppose testing a few

copies at the store and having the option of returning it if it should make

weird noises or front-focusing issues is reassuring enough.

THE QUESTION that it all comes down to is weather it's as sharp, contrasty and

does it have the natural color reproduction of the canon 50mm 1.4. I don't need

a lens with superior qualities that my 50 1.4 and if the Sigma 30 would be on

par, I would sleep real easy and spend my days taking shots and not searching

for the truth on the internet.

THE ANSWERS - how bout we put it to a vote?

I don't blame your for clicking the back button half way through this post:)

Hehe, ok Bob, I'm now more than convinced the fella on FM passed a very unique, hard to corroborate and extremely prompt judgemt on this lens, especially since he states to have only tested it for 4 hours.

The link I attached was the best thing I could image under "digital effect", so I suppose you could define it as "crappy image quality similar to 2 Mpix cameras on Nokia cell phones":)

Leaving that aside, I am very satisfied that the Canon 10-22 lens is the one I'll definitely get first, especially since the difference between f3.5 and f2.8 truly cannot be that much, and since it enjoys a resolute endorsement of Bob Atkins and Yakim Peled.

Of course I'd like to add a fast prime to cover the range between 20 and 50mm. The controversial and dividing 28 1.8 is on the top of my list, although I have a feeling I'll start a tread entitled "28 or 35L prime vs 17-55 IS EF-S" when I secure the budget for my next purchase:)

Thanks for all your comments!

The 10-22mm does indeed look interesting. However I noticed the following post on fredmiranda:

"The first is a very "digital" quality to the photos. I am not sure how to put this. If you take a photo on a Canon digital point and shoot, like the sd500, you see a slightly "digified" quality in all the photos. Perhaps this is a product of the mild loss of tonal separation in this lens, maybe it is a product of a somewhat different glass configuration in these ef-s lenses...I am not sure. If you want an example, I refer you to the Canon EF Lens Work III book. Look at all the photos taken on "regular" canon glass, and then look at their sample photo from the ef-s lens they have in there (i think it is the 17-55). You will see exactly what I am talking about. Now, I am not saying that this is a problem as some people might prefer their photos to look this way; however, it made this lens absolutely unacceptable to me as a lens for anything more than what I would typically photograph with a point and shoot." -posted by stewarda on 3/7/2006

)http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&cpage=3&perpage=15&cat=27#poststart)

So I recalled a photo posted by another user as a reference:

http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/image/61054021

I really hate this "digital" effect. Is this an isolated incident, or is this the line that divides the L from the EF-S?

Those are good points. I've been reading some very reassuring reviews of the 10-22 and 17-55 EF-S lenses. THe Digital Picture.com puts them side by side with the best L series zooms. But there's the compatibility issue with FF cameras, not just DSLR but also the good old 1v. I guess the sure winner would be the 16-35L 2.8, but I'm not convinced I wouldn't end up buying fast primes to go along with that. So I figure I'm asking the wrong questions.

I shouldn't be comparing primes and zooms, but rather seek encouragement or dissaproval in selecting either the prime combination or the zoom for my primary walkaround kit.

And I wont be getting both 'cause I haven't gotten my PhD this year and therefore will not be rewarding myself with exceeding amounts of zeal and optical plentitude.

I suppose we should have a poll:)

I'm looking for a lens that will let me take pictures of indoor events without

having to leave the room and shoot through the window:) And while I wait for a

FF DSLR that doesn't cost as three L lenses put together, I am in need of a

solution for a 1.6 crop factor.

To make a long story short, I was thinking about the so much admired 17-40L

zoom, but I don't like zooms that much and the f4 speed index keeps putting me

off. I like low light photography withouth a flash.

That's why I'm seriously thinking of getting a new "standard" walkaround lens in

the form of the canon 28 1.8 (a 35L would be even sweeter) and a 15mm 2.8

fisheye. I tested the latter in the store today and the barell distortion when

looking through the viewfinder isn't really disturbing, while the post

processing in PS fixes that completely and I don't mind doing it.

So...15mm fish + 28mm vs 17-40L. Am I going down a weird and exotic road over

the sure and obvious winner?

Thanks for your comments.

I agree with you there Dan. F4 is a touch too slow. The lens I love best is the 50mm 1.4. The lenses I'd love (to have) best are the 24l, 35l, 85l and maybe 200l. So you could say that I am a huge fan of low light photography.

Until I can get the aforementioned wide L lenses, I am looking for an alternative to the 17-40l, since I don't really care much for zooms. Would the 28 1.8 be a good alternative and can the quality of color rendition be compensated for in PP?

"Get a fast wide prime. There are several Canon L and non-L primes that will generally do a better job then the 17-40L, especially for low light shots. As for the F2.8 16-35L, well, F2.8 is not considered fast, especially for available light (indoors, challanging light)."

Which primes would that be? I'm genuinely interested in getting one but most reviewers appeart to agree that the 17-40 does a better job, especially in terms on color and tone. The-digital-picture.com reviews suggest only the 24L or 35L beat the L zoom in this regards.

Brett....stop toying with the idea of replacing the 50mm. If FOV is a problem, rather start thinking of ways to getting an EOS 5d:)

Hard to argue with that. Although based on the fact that J has a long time historty with photography and has been working as a semi pro in the past, I've been building from a premise that he "can make it with a 10d" but wants to stock up with a few big guns.

So as it would be wrong to guide him toward bancrupcy with ill-warranted projections of personal desires for things such as the 1D MKII, it wouldn't be entierly fair to diss his motivation by fading the differences between a 10d and a 1d:)

But I agree, you should not over do it. You can always get an extra lens or body later on, should you feel it to be necessary.

"As I see it, a pro photographer needs pro tools and - in that case - that steers to towards 1D Mk II N."

A few other previous comments were aiming at not only the quality or versatility if you will, but also the confidence and to some extent the "stereotipity" expected of a professional photographer. You have to exude some amount of confidence that in returm finds the ultimate confirmation in the tools you're using.

And remember, your customers wont necessarily always know the difference between an L lens and a cheap zoom, or even a DSLR or a SLR for that matter, but they'll be able to tell if something looks pro/expensive or not. And although looks don't necessarily mean diddly squat they do go a long way in terms of making the sale. And if you want to sell yourself over the next guy, you'll want to look the part and if you look the part, you'll feel the part much easier with your customers having no a priori doubts regarding your competence or quality. I mean, would a complete looser be posing with a 1D and L grade lenses that look, feel and shoot expensive, just for the hell of it? I wouldn't think so:)

I'd go with Yakim on this one and also remind you not to forget a nice bag and all the other little details that go along with a hardcore professional. The devil's in the details...

That's precisely what I did. The girl at the store was real friendly and showed me the 350d with battery grip, the 30d and a bunch of lenses.

My conclusion was that although the results from a 350d and a 30d are practically identical, photography, at least for me, isn't just about looking at the perfect shot. It's just as much about getting/making it.

And the 350d just doesn't feel like it's designed to be a precision tool. So after all the comparing and weighing of fact, opinion and desire, I belive 30d paired with for now only a 50mm and 30mm lenses is the combo that would let me enjoy photography once again.

Thanks for all your comments and help.

After going through the argument...I guess what it boils down to is this:

a) 350d + 1GB + 50mm 1.8 mkII + 85mm 1.8

or

b) 20d (or 30d) + 1GB + 50mm 1.8 mkII

So...is getting the 85mm lens worth the trade off for a "lesser" body. Some of you sure think so:). However, I don't really see myself upgrading the body in the next few years. Then there's the idea of the 30d + a few lenses being a trade off for the 5d:)

I think I've burdened you guys enough and will head off to the nearest srote and unleash my uncertainies upon their mortal soles.

Thanks for the helpful replies. I've been aiming for the 350d, but after picking up the Eos 100 this morning after a long time, my decisivness becamy shaky at best. My original reservations regarding menu controls and the missing dial on the back end I've grown the love on my slr, came back to haunt me.

Now I must say I am entertaining the idea of getting the 30d and a 50mm prime. BUT I am also a strong subscriber to the "get good lenses over good body" school of thought.

There's just one catch; I did the math and came up with disturbing conclusions. The European union sure isn't user friendly when it comes to photography. Lenses are some 30 to 40% more expensive then in the US and if you import, there's a 20% value added tax plus 7% customs on the VAT including price.

Anyhow...this is what it boils down to:

The Canon 17-40mm 4l costs me $1000, as does the 70-200 f4l. The Rebel XT + 2gb CF is another $1000. The 50mm 1.4 $420. That comes to a total of $3400 for a Rebel XT with good, but not the only lenses I hope to own. The 70-200 2.8l for example goes for $1700.

Now the 30d goes for $1900. Add a 50mm 1.4 and I'm already passed the $2000 I had in mind for this purchase. I mean I'd love to go on a spending frenzy here, but I'm one of those people who always somehow manage to pick out the most detail rich and therefore pricy item in the store. And my interests are not really limited...but I cherish quality over bargains. It's also motivation to live up to expectations high end equipment projects in the minds of the public at large:)

So....since the difference in bodies only buys me 3/4 of a 17-40L, the real question is

A) weather I'm willing to get a really cool body with just a 50mm prime

and

B) can I live with the 1.8 version, knowing that although a kick ass prime, there's a 1.4 out there that gives you that extra 5-10% added value.

Would you prefer the psychological dimension of user comfort, reliability and long term gain the 30d delivers, over quick success an added 17-40 would add to a good but lesser Rebel XT?

....I should buy something soon...this'll drive me nuts:)

After finally deciding that it just takes too damn long to get the film

processed and enjoy the results of my photo efforts, I'm about to get a DSLR.

The choice is rather obvious, the 350d paired with a new 50mm 1.4 and a 17-40L

should nicely complement the old 35-105 zoom and the 70-300 sigma I had on the

Eos 100.

Now there's just one issue left that wont let me sleep at night; will the 350d

manage the same feel of "serious" photography as the eos 100 did. You know,

the feeling you're actually manufacturing a work of art instead of just

shooting at it with a Star Trek like sensor device.

Of course the 30d would put an end to these fears, but getting it without the

new lenses is sortof like buying a new sports car with 13" rimms.

Any thougts anyone?