jeff_higdon

<p>Nathan:<br>

Wow, your comments about it being useless in the digital age is a bit harsh and must reflect your own particular use of it, I guess?<br>

I used it for outdoor shots (mostly city buildings) on sunny days and heck if I could tell the difference in sharpness, color, detail etc. from my then Canon 28-70 f/2.8 - on my 5D. Quite frankly, as a starter lens for a small sum of money, it's a great choice. Sure, indooors it may not be wide enough on a crop, it will need a flash indoors (just like my 24-105 f/4 that replaced it), but as an overall walkaround for those who don't need true wide angle, it's a bargain.<br>

It's sold often in mint condition out of the 7D, 40D and 50D kits for as little as $200 (that's what it cost the kit buyers to acquire it new); I paid less than $200.<br>

The above discussion reminds me of the love/hate relationship also with the 17-85 IS and the lenses are quite similar. Many people who have complained about both of these lenses have never used them (or hardly used them).<br>

I think it's a worthwhile, light walkaround on a full frame or on a crop. But not for $400 new...</p>

 

<p>+1 to what JDM said</p>

<p>Roger:</p>

<p>Adrian has it right. If you want to continue to use Elements to work on your RAW files (and I also think Elements is much nicer than DPP and cheaper than the other alternatives), just download from Adobe the DNG converter. It's bit annoying to work with but it lets you postpone upgrading your Elements as long as you want. You can batch convert files also. Once they are converted to DNG files then you simply right click on the DNG file you want to process as a RAW file and bring it up in Elements and the same controls appear as if it's a RAW file etc. Really no big deal.<br>

Here's the free link:<br>

<a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=windows">http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=windows</a></p>

<div></div>

<p>I saw that shot, Ken. Very clean, very sharp, very nice. Impressive use of 3200.<br>

But it looks like the light shining on the wall is bright - how low light would you consider that bathroom?</p>

<p>My serious work is always in low light venues - concerts, recitals, plays etc. so I always enjoy reading about the capabilities of the Canon bodies and lenses.<br>

I have used, from time to time, most of the Rebels as well as the 30D/40D/50D and the 5D mk1. Of these, the 5Dmk1 (I have not used the 5Dmk2 and that's probably your best bet for an upgrade) and the T2i have performed above all the rest when using high ISO in low light venues. I have found little difference between the 40D and the 50D to each other and each is only slightly better than the 30D (and that could have been my imagination).<br>

(I have found it interesting that writers like to brag about a camera or a lens' high ISO ability and then post photos to prove it when the photos are taken in very bright arenas or in the outdoors well before susnset. There's a difference, IMHO, of using the high ISO - 1600 or higher - in low light venues vs. in good light. Yes, one might move to 1600 or 3200 to get a higher shutter speed etc. but it's really not the same test.)<br>

I am very glad to see Ken's comment re the 7D. I have never used it except in the store. I have read pro and con on the 7D's effectiveness in low light as compared to the 30D/40D/50D and the Rebels. I have no reason to doubt Ken's findings (or anything he has ever written). Since I have seen a significant improvement in high ISO in low light venues for the T2i (better than the 40D or 50D for example), it's not surprising to hear that the 7D has a significant improvement there also. But, again, I've read otherwise also.<br>

Tripod, monopod, fast lens (including even 2.8 though 1.8 or 1.4 are preferred) and steady hands are your best bet. Rent a 7D or T2i or 5Dmk2 or buy a 5Dmk1. Rent some fast lenses. See what works for you. Use a noise suppression software package. </p>

<div></div>

<p>As you have surmised, the kit lens (18-55 IS) can be fine for landscape photography - unless you are a professional.<br />The 24-105 is better for landscape but probably not wide enough on the crop (50D, 40D, 550D) so I do understsnd why you'd like the 18-55IS.<br />Since you are just getting started I'd suggest the combo kit currently selling in the US for $999USD which includes the T2i (550D where you are) bundled with the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS.<br />Be aware that many folks who move up to a full frame sensor end up keeping their crop system as a backup - pro or non-pro.<br />Purchasing the 24-105 new by itself is expensive and makes less sense if you want to move up to the full frame in short order. It's cheaper to buy it as a package with the 5Dmk2. Or buy it used for about $900USD mint copy now.<br />The 15-85 is supposedly a great lens but somewhat on the slow side. Since you are just starting I think you are better served by spending essentially a total of $200 on the 18-55 and 55-250 based on current pricing of the combo package rather than $600-$700USD for the 15-85 when you know you are going to sell the 15-85 within the year or just "keep it as a backup". As long as you are inclined to invest in EF-S lenses in only the short term, I suggest you go for the less expensive ones - and they are good lenses also. <br />Also, knowing that you are going to full frame soon, I see no point in starting off with a 40D or 50D unless you are getting used copies in near mint condition substantially discounted. Dip your toe in with a Rebel. (like the sound of that...)<br />What type of "event" photography will you be doing?</p>

<p>Wow, those rates are high! In Baltimore, MD the going rate to rent a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS for the weekend (from noon Friday to 9am Monday) is $35.00 .</p>

<p>All of the above suggestions are good. But, before doing any of that, I suggest you spend $139 and get the IS version of the lens you already have and you may find that it suits your needs perfectly. B&H sells said 18-55 IS version in a white box for $139. "White box" does not mean "used" or "gray market"; it simply means they pulled it out of a kit. The same warranty applies, I believe. You may find that it is all you really need. And if you don't like it, there is a good return policy which I believe is without any restocking fee. If you go beyond the time period, you could easily sell it on craigslist and get at least $100 back and maybe more.<br>

FWIW, I got good results from the non-IS version but the IS version gets excellent reviews all around.<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585950-USA/Canon_2042B002WB_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585950-USA/Canon_2042B002WB_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html</a></p>

<div></div>

<p>I am in the same situation - I have the 5D still though - and the 5D2 primarily interests me because apparently it handles ISO 1600 and 3200 much better than the 5D. Most of my serious work is indoor low light - so if that is part of your subject matter then there's another reason to get the 5D2.<br>

Whether you have the 5D2 or the 5D, I think you should have the 17-40 and the 24-105 though many prefer (with good reason) the more expensive (and heavier) tandem of the 16-35 II and the 24-70.</p>

 

<p>The 5D classic (original 5D) and the 50D use the same batteries. The newer 5D2 does not.</p>

<p>You can use Picasa - free up to a certain amount of space - I forget whether it's 1GB, 2GB, whatever - and there's an option not to allow your viewers to print to a third party printer. They can still download the photos onto their computer but you can upload them in lower rez so as to discourage pritning etc. You can also purchase much more space and the rates are very reasonable.</p>

<p>Greetings, Harry.<br>

I have been pleased with the 270EX on my 5D classic since December. It's always in the mix when I use the 5D away from the house and the 420EX stays home most of the time unless there is serious work to be done. I use the 270EX indoors and out. Bounces the flash also unlike other models. Cheap, better than the pop-up flash on my 30D.</p>

 

<p>On the 5Dmk1, I have used the Canon 28-70 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, 28-135 IS and the 24-105. Outdoors in good light, no differences in IQ. Indoors, I'd want the L lenses and it's not just a matter of faster glass, it's a matter of better glass. With the flash, little difference among the 4.<br />Given that you can get the 28-135IS for as little as $200 used/mint ($400 new unless you buy it with the kit), I think it's the best deal out there as far as a walkaround.<br />So whether you will notice the difference that another $1,000 brings to your table depends largely on your usage. If you are doing indoor portraits or need the bokeh of an f/2.8 lens, yes then by all means you want and will like the 2.8 zoom whether the 28-70 or the 24-70. And, by the way, I saw no difference between the 24-70 and the 28-70 - and ended up with the 24-105! So, go figure.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Without a doubt, at that budget I would suggest a Canon 55-250 IS available at B&H for $255.<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543923-USA/Canon_2044B002AA_EF_S_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543923-USA/Canon_2044B002AA_EF_S_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html</a></p>

 

<p>Try Penn Camera 840 E Street or their Tyson's Corner location.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I agree with Steven that, based on your stated needs, there is no need to upgrade to the 7D. However, I suggest getting a mint, used 5Dmk1 instead of the 5D2 or 7D. From what I have read, the high ISO usage (at least at 800, 1600 & 3200) will be as good or better on the 5D1 than on the 7D and, from personal experience (I own the 5D and the 30D) the 5D1 will be a significant upgrade in low light from the 30D. Plus, you can (and should) sell the 10-22 (of course it won't work on the 5D1 or 5D2 anyway). Landscapes are more suited to the full frames and the 24-105 is really plenty wide on the 5D1. You save about $600 by getting a used 5Dmk1 rather than the 7D plus you'll get about $600 in your pocket from the sale of the 10-22 and another $400 from the sale of the 30D. So you can upgrade to the 5Dmk1 for almost nothing out of pocket. The 7D is an excellent camera and it does have lots of bells and whistles that neither the 5Dmk1 nor the 30D have but performance in low light on the 7D is about the same as a 5Dmk1 or a little less. Bear in mind that the 5Dmk1 and the 30D are essentially the same camera except (and it's a big "except") that the 5D is full frame. An added bonus is that they (the 30D and the 5Dmk1) use the same batteries and no-name batteries go for as little as $10 at Adorama.</p>

<p>Currently, I have the 30D and the 5D (mk1) and have thought about selling both to get the 5D mk11 but it would also involve new cash that I don't have.<br>

Regarding the differences between the 5D and the 5D2, I am most impressed with what I have read about the low light, high ISO capablities of the 5D2 over the 5D. Most of the work I do is low light dance recitals, some club work and high school plays - all of which challenge the camera and the lenses in view of the fact that flashes are not allowed. I will say that the 5D mk 1 is basically the 30D with full frame. And that means alot. You will, though, find the transition seamless except for the way your lenses will behave of course.<br>

You should be able to get a near mint 5D for no more than $1,200USD. I suggest trying the 5D first and see if you're not blown away with its IQ and low light performance. While the features of the 30D and 5D are virtually identical, the 5Dmk1 will be a huge upgrade for you. If you are not happy, you can get most if not all of your money back and move up to the 5D2.<br>

Oh, the 5D (like your 30D) does not have the auto sensor cleaner that all Rebels from the Xti onward have had as have the 40D on up that line. Of course, the 5D2 has this feature as well. If you've had a problem keeping the sensor clean on your 30D, then this might be a consideration for you as well to get the 5D2.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Your comment re the 24-70 is pretty common to new owners of this lens - particularly when the user is coming from the 50mm f/1.8. I had the same problem with the 28-70 and 24-70. They are large, heavy lenses. It just takes some getting used to. Try a faster shutter speed or, as suggested above, use a tripod or monopod until you get comfortable with the lens. The 24-70 is an excellent lens. I suspect it is camera shake you are encountering. Ultimately, though I was delighted with the shots I got handheld outdoors in the bright sun and anywhere on tripod, I just found the lens to be too heavy for me handheld. I moved on to the 24-105 with IS and did not look back.</p>

<p>I have used both of those lenses on my 5D (mk1). And (quite some time ago) I travelled down the California coast around Big Sur, Carmel/Monterey (17 Mile Drive etc.). I wish I had my current camera equipment when I was there. If you are primarily interested in scenic and landscape shots I think either lens would suit you fine on your camera. If I had to pick one though I would choose the 17-40 only because it allows you to capture more of the beautiful scenery in the frame. I think the quality of your images should be very close. That being said, plenty of people use the 24-105 for shooting landscapes and, obviously, the range is much greater with the 24-105 but going on that trip I'd save the extra $300-$400 and get the 17-40. Maybe I'd spend the savings on a consumer zoom like the 70-300 IS to cover the rest of the shots. Or if you are going to want something to work handheld in low light I'd look for a prime to supplement the 17-40.<br>

What other lenses do you currently have?</p>

 

<p>Just buy two or three generic batteries for the 50D and charge them all before you go. Adorama has them for $9.95. I bought one and it lasts at least as long as the genuine Canon. Unless you are taking a million shots or using the camera more than a week, you should be fine with an arsenal of 4 batteries total.</p>