stillbound

Dave,

for one...(even though I have one) not many people can afford the 24-70 2.8

number 2 - it is not dull at 1.8

number 3 - it wieghs about a 20th of what the zoom does

 

Shooting street scenes and regular photography it surely helps to have the lightness and the light sensitivity of the 50...

 

As for why it's so important...I don't know why so many people used them for so long before the invention of the $1000 zoom...

 

JC

Colin...thanks but why?

 

the "normal lens" has been a staple of photography for the entire history of 35 mm and the 50 1.8 is often hailed as the best budget lens you can buy...why wouldn't canon make one for their digital slrs...

something with the build quality of a 50 that would be normal...

 

you can't tell me that canon isn't making plenty on the 50 1.8

Why can't/won't canon (or nikon for that matter) create a 30ish 1.8 or 1.4 to

give a true "normal lens for the 1.6 folks - preferably one that would fit on

any camera...

I can't imagine that creating a 30 1.8 would cost much more to produce than the

50 1.8...say in the $100 range...something that people could choose rather than

the kit lens

There is an interesting article in pop photo this weak about in camera vs. lens based IS and they claim that on average the lens based are better by one stop than the body based...

 

In regards to the actual post - I own the 2.8 IS and have shot the 4 IS - the IS in the f4 is definitely a bit better but you can't replace the effect of the 2.8. The long and short of it is this - if you A. can afford the 2.8, B. Need the "bokeh" of the 2.8 - buy the 2.8. If not..the f4 is an amazing feat of engineering

The second part is I HATE the 100 - 400 with it's ridiculous push pull zoom - this is a lens that I really, really, wish canon would redo...

 

JC

Sigma 30 1.4 - hands down...a few dollars more than the canon but it is truly "normal" giving you the feel of a traditional 50...

Very sharp and very solid

bh doesn't have it yet...

not sure about anywhere else

it's an 80 dollar lens. buy a new one...or save and buy the 1.4...much more solid and sharper

any day now canon will release the 18 55 IS and 55 250 IS which can both be bought for under 500 combined...

Another option would be the 17 85 IS which is roughly 500 by itself. Since most of your pics are of the family that is not a bad lens.

For you I would also have to think along the lines of the tamron 18 250 which is a relatively sharp "all in one" lens. No IS but lots of range...

i had thought it was image quality but then someone said it was image quotient and i was lost...

thanks guys

JC

i hear you guys say it over and over and I still have no idea what it is...

 

thanks in advance

 

JC

I often tell people to put a nice little bag of silica in their bags but most don't...this is the cheapest way to prevent this sort of thing.

 

As for the lens...i know the non IS had been kind of notorious for mold/fungus but have not heard that too much with the newer one...but it sure sounds like that is what has happened here

if you can swing the money this is ONE instance where I think you would be better off spending more money on the body...already a few here have said that they bought and sold their rebel bodies quickly and there is a reason for this...the camera may seem like something great if you have come from a bad p/s but the truth is that the 40D is a real tool...a solid piece of machinery that you will be happy with for the life of the camera without feeling much in the way or remorse.

or you could keep the good L zoom you have and buy a few fast primes for the same price as the 24 - 70. It's only a matter of time before canon comes with an IS version of that lens and as someone that bought and sold the sigma...it's not nearly as sharp or fast focusing as the L glass...

I now have the 16 - 35, the 24 - 70, the 50 1.4, and some long zooms and truth be told I use the 50 as much as the 24 - 70...

if you are looking at a sigma lens for inside think about the 30 1.4..it will fit on a full frame camera to make a super fast wide angle and makes for a true "normal lens" on your 1.6 body...

Canon also makes plenty of at least 2.8 primes that would save you money without sacrificing a ton on sharpness....

My two cents

JC

couple of things...

 

the d40 and d80 do "feel" better than the xti...after that there really isn't any difference beyond what you are used to. As for build "quality" i have never seen a canon have the hand grip peeling off issue that every d200 i've ever seen has...

 

The other point is people saying the new nikons have "really high ISO" - it's not as though the old nikons didn't have "really high iso" they do...just unusable. truth be told though...i fully expect the new nikons to be excellent and i hope that competition is really good for everyone...

nikon does not have the "lens you want" as the 18 - 200 is around 750 but if you are going to make a purchasing decision based on some sort of swiss army knife zoom lens that is not sharp at either end then no one can argue with you...

It is always my advice to invest in glass not bodies...and the canon 70 - 300 is not heavy and at 550 is just out of your price range...

my first question was also why the 200 prime and zooms...

 

I would grab the 40D, the 70 200 F4 IS, the 17 85 IS and a 50 1.4 - this would leave him money for a decent tripod and some faster memory...

to bullet...yes

that is almost a silly question...almost. I work in a very reputable camera store and the number one complaint about the xti is the "feel" compared to d80 and even the d40...

The new sesnor "should" destroy the nikon entry levels and with the improved body...yea for canon

the simplest way to answer this is to decide if you see yourself staying in the xti/xxd market or moving to a full frame...

if the former then the efs lens is clear choice...

oh...and a fast 30ish lens...maybe a 34 1.4 to give us a fast true normal lens again

i honestly don't know what the complaining is about...

what lenses do you really want? be realistic. Is there something you need that is not already covered? If you've had the 50 or 85 1.2's in your hand you can plainly see they are not "just a 1/3 stop better" than their ancestors...they are serious super fast focusing tools.

 

They truly do have most practical lenses covered...I'd love to see an updated 70 - 300 with the new IS and less drift...maybe a 4.5 top instead of 5.6....

is it just me or do both of these sites look like they were created by children?

 

Really bad - not up to the standards that canon had for the release of the 1D mk 2's

 

Not really a big deal at all but...whatever

the simple answer is wait for the 40d which is the most exciting news in a long time from canon. The 1d's were expected to be great...the 40 is an amazing upgrade to the xxd series...