stillbound

only in passing...not for tests. Same build quality but the images were sharper. take a look at this detailed review which puts the lens ahead of the 3x more expensive 17-85 is

 

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

I agree with the couple of post above that 2 stops was more of a "film starting" filter than it is for digital...

With digital I'd have to say the range moves to a choice between 3 stop or 4 stop...

Good luck

JC

Truthfully I hate the 35/2. Just don't think it's that sharp and I can't stand the old style build. Not a giant fan of the 100/2 either as I would probably give up the light and go with the 100/2.8 macro and thus cover two bases with that one stone...

The cable release is the RS80 I think...

The price of memory has come down so much that I can't imagine using only a two gig card...

4gb extreme 3 is under 60 at b/h and if you can get the mail in rebate that means you get it for around 40...

not sure where you heard that the 1DS3 has focusing issues...

On top of that there have been a spate of D3's being returned for "focusing issues" which seems to be the new catch phrase. You're just not cool unless you have those issues

you can get a 8gb extreme 3 sd for 80 bucks...

that is really the least of my issues. Are you all really saying that you don't own a p/s that uses sd?

 

The bigger issue to me is why again they have decided to jump the xxd in mp (yes i know there is far more than mp to IQ but still...) and why they can't set the price at closer to 7 for the kit...

at 850 it's too close to a 40D for me...

it is definitely going to put a dent in 40d sales unless they drop the price quite a bit in actual practice...

For those that have not seen the new 18-55 IS actually tests sharper than the 17-85 so that is a big move since the other kit lens was garbage...

The word had been out for a while that No new 5D was coming and not so sound like "i told you so" but i said that 3 months ago citing the cannabilizing of 1dS3 sales if it came so quick and with the 1ds3 nearly impossible to get that concept just about doubled....

if anything i would have expected the "7D" - 5D sensor in 40D clothes with those upgrades for the same price as current 5d as a d300 crusher but it seems we got nothing in terms of full frame...

Now I just have to wait and see if they will drop the price on the 40D any more before I decide which of these little cams will be my spare to my 1dII

those are list prices...

what do you think the list is on the other stuff you buy?

 

In any event - if this is it from canon it is a very disappointing PMA and we will have to listen to six more months of nikon bs....

arghh

JC

lens blur...bokeh...bouquet

Just wondering how you guys say it since i hear it so many ways...

sort of a poll or sorts

JC

The STE-2 is outdated and really not worth the 200 it costs...

it is much more cost effective and versatile to just buy a second 580II as it controls twice as many units as a STE-2 at the same range while adding the ability to have an on camera flash...

As for pocket wizards they are great if you don't shoot "line of sight" or if you are very comfy shooting manual...

 

JC

 

www.pbase.com/josephwcarey

the last i checked the lenses were still on "sale" (rebate)

 

As for the other guy saying film prices have gone up - um yea...and they will continue to go up as supply dwindles. That is basic economy. Kodak just stopped making bw infrared to follow up on their stopping of color infrared. Only a matter of time before film is very scarce...

 

Happy shopping

it's been hit on already but i'll throw down real quick...

 

the 200 2.8 is sharper than the 70-200<b>

 

the 300 4 is sharper than the 70-200 with a 1.4<b>

 

the 400 5.6 is not my fave and if i was going to buy this i would probably just buy the 100-400 zoom but the 400 5.6 is probably still sharper...and focuses faster as do the others..

i wasn't offended...my main point was that you are putting a restriction on the camera but using the kit lens. If the pics you get don't seem to be "great" it could very well be that the lens takes a very nice little camera and turns it into a glorified point and shoot

i can't believe no one said anything about the "i'm a great photographer" line...

that is pretty bold...

i go with the 50 1.4 for the record

the funniest thing about this whole thread is that the only universal truth in all the answers was "DO NOT BUY THE ORIGINAL 18-55" and yet the op ignored us all and did just that...

I don't get the point of asking advice and then ignoring it - if the answers had been all over the place I'd understand but at least five responses said to say away from the kit lens and either go with the new IS version or save for a better lens...

Good luck and happy shooting but don't take the results you get with that lens to be the results that the xti is capable of - you have done the camera a disservice...

i HATE the 75-300 - it's not just the fact that it is non is. it is also lacking great glass and build quality. The 70-300 IS is better glass even without the IS.

The 18-55 IS IS sharper than the old version and also has IS thrown in for good measure...

520 @ B/H for the body plus 175 for the lens plus 75 (before 20 mail in rebate) for 4gb sandisk extreme 3 and a hoya multi coated uv for 20 ish puts him below his mark and gives him good options while he saves for some better glass...

that's because 1/250th is not nearly fast enough to "freeze" sports...

On top of that not sure what made you think the 5d would be the better sports camera - the 40 is far superior for sports due to faster af, 1.6 crop factor, and 6.5 frames per second...

In any event - I would try 500th of a second and see what that yields and go from there

why? why would you put the tokina on a 1D? you already stated you have both the 16-35 and the 17-40 - i don't get it...

In any event the tokina is a sharp piece of glass - i just don't see why you would give up the 2mm and roughly 20 degree loss of view over the canon or sigma.

tamrac 5501 is a good cheap choice - not too big. good padding. inexpensive. and will hold a few other things as well.

the 3 is great camera but out of production so you are looking at a used model...

as for the 1v - great cam but way out of your price range

The elan is nice - at the time it was really pretty nice but now feels kind of strange in my hands when I've picked them up

JC

like usual I will ask this - if you were planning on getting a "super wide" then why did you buy the 17-55? i would have bought the 10-22 and the 24-70 or 24-105 depending on my aperture needs...both are better built than the 17-55 and without the fear that you will have to replace them should you ever go FF...

 

Aside from that I would take the Canon, then the Sigma, then the Tokina.

 

I think the extra 2 mm is a big deal especially if you are already at 17 to start - the other option is just to learn how to use photo stitch and not bother with one of the superwides

I think the 17-55 is ok but honestly don't see the point if you are getting th 10-22. If i was shooting with a 1.6 camera the only efs lens I would own would be the 10-22. then I would have a 24-70 and then the 70-200. The 17-55 just doesn't make much sense to me. if it was built like an L (and it's not) then maybe i could see it, but i'd still rather go with the better built lens. Before anyone yells - yes I know it has IS and while that's nice I don't see it as really necessary on a lens that short. I'd rather see it cost 200 - 400 less (the price bump in canons other IS glass)

I really don't understand this - I've had my 1D2 cleaned three times in three years and never because it was particularly dusty - more because I was driving past canon and decided to have it done...

 

I would wonder where do you live? You sound careful and you sound like you practice good concepts...strange

 

Most people seem to be using arctic butterfly or copper

I'm absolutely saying that...anything that I need to shoot at iso 25600 i can't see...

seems me and brent were typing at same time..forgive me for covering much of the same stuff

problem is this for nikon -

the camera out performs a camera that is almost three years old. And in tests that didn't come from nikon hacks the d3 (which i've played with and like) only begins to separate from that 3 year old 3000 dollar less camera at 800 and above - ISO's that the 5D isn't really aimed at.

As for the comp of the 1Ds3 vs the d3 - I've heard just the opposite...

my biggest issue with all this "high iso this and high iso that" talk is : didn't you guys ever shoot film? who the hell ever shot real work higher than 800 - sure there were films out there that were faster but they were aimed at surveillance and specialty shooting....

enough with the 25000 iso talk...who cares? I don't

Give me superior dynamic range at 50 - 800 and I'll be ecstatic...

thanks

JC

 

www.pbase.com/josephwcarey