citizensmith1664875108

When I first switched from a 7e to a RebelD I frequently caught myself wondering why the damn focus point wasn't moving. I ended up switching to the center point only as the automatic selection is unreliable, and manual selection a pain in the neck.

 

I'd love it back.

Oh come off it. This is nothing to do with being smart. For one, changing the date is very easy as anyone who has ever pressed the menu button will know. Second, its all covered in the manual, so if the concept of menu buttons is a little too much for you they've got you covered by spelling it all out step by step.

 

My point was more that asking why the camera has the wrong date when it was knowingly never set is pretty weak. Remove the stuff that could be figured out by your pet cat and there is actually a question in there (to which the answer is probably that some applications don't bother saving exif data) but I kind of like the idea that people would put in a little effort themselves before passing it off to someone else to deal with.

So you wondering why the exif data shows the wrong date but never bothered to set that information yourself? Try and put a little effort in yourself before you post please.

Don't know where you are that a USB1.1 card reader with no cable costs $125, but there are these things called online retailers who do this thing called international shipping. A USB2.0 8in1 reader with cable should cost no more that $30 for a decent one.

 

If its really $125 for a reader spend the money on WindowsXP instead. Assuming your computer doesn't suck that is, and I've had it running on a P3-450 with 192Mb RAM (not mine thankfully) so you'd have to have a real relic for that not to be an option.

but make that 50 f/1.4 not 1.5. :) I wish this forum let you edit.

Mouse over the equipment menu, click on the Canon link, lo and behold there is a lens section. Oh look, click of the 50 f/1.5 vs 1.8 link. Not difficult. :)

They are pretty much optical equals, and both have been around a while. If Canon do release an update next week it'll be a surprise to everyone.

 

I'd go for the 24 if only because you can crop unwanted stuff out of a wide shot later on, but if you can't get it with the 35 you just can't get it.

 

Then again, I'm the person that sold a 50 f/1.8 because that focal length just didn't work for me. I'm tend to be happiest around 24mm or 100mm it seems. You need to take that 17-35 and figure out which of the two focal lengths work best for you.

$50 is cheap, I just think its a little wasted. You could try and find a used 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 which is a very good lens for a consumer zoom and should be not too much over $100. The 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM is also somewhat better than the 75-300. Optics are similar, but better build and faster focusing. Or, if you aren't bothered by slow and clunky use but would like some high quality glass then a used 100-300 f/5.6L would be worth tracking down.

 

Personally I'd rather spend a bit more money and get something I'd trust than $50 dumped on something that sucks. And I've owned a 75-300 so this is speaking from experience. The ethereal glow the lens lends to all its images may occasionally have its place but it sure annoyed me. :)

Two of the ways to get a panorama are... Get a decent wide angle and crop off the top and bottom of the view. Or, get a normal lens and take a series of shots and stitch them together.

 

The Canon 1D has a 1.3 effective focal length modifier. So, the popular Canon 17-40L lens ($670ish) would work out at a decently wide 22-52.

 

For stitching together photo series I use photoshop, but there are several specialist packages out there that probably do a better job. I can't recomend a specific one as I don't any of course.

 

Other people may be able to give better advice if you can give us your budget.

Why not just put the microdrive in the camera and the SD in the PPC?

The 17-85 gets mixed reviews, generally good with a few issues, one being its overpriced. However, getting it as part of the kit helps aleviate that. If you can afford another lens I'd suggest a 28 f/2.8 (effectively a 45 on the 20D) for $160, or the 50 f/1.8 for $70 could be a good choice if a bit long for a walkaround lens. I certainly wouldn't sell the 17-85. It's a versatile lens and you'll get great milage from it. However, when you are able to slow down and really work on some shots a prime will be better.

Hey, nobody mentioned the Nikon forum had an RSS feed set up. I think I'll sell all my Canon kit and go get an F1 or something so I can use that forum instead. :)

 

Can we have RSS over here too please.

I never tend to frequent more than one or two forums, and this is the only one I've been at for a long time. Having said that I'd love to see a features upgrade to improve appearance (and use CSS so those dedicated to this style can keep it) and add things like the oh so needed edit feature. For nistance eDit wud be grate for thiss lime.

One of the noted abilities with the 20D is low light photography. The 20D can reportedly shoot at ISO1600 as well as the 10D/300D can shoot at ISO400, and those cameras are fantastic at 400. Consequently you'll already have a big advantage in flash-free situations.

 

You could get the 17-40 f/4L, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 L for your budget. It's a popular combination of lenses. Maybe add in a 20 f/2.8 or something as well.

 

$2000 is plenty for decent lenses unless you decide to drop $1000+ on one of the big guns like the 17-35 f/2.8L, 24-70 f/2.8L, or 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. With the high ISO abilities of this camera I'm not as sure you'd need them.

Here were my other thoughts.

 

The 17-40 comes with a lens hood, the 17-85 doesn't and its a $30 extra.

 

The 17-85 uses 67mm filters same as the 70-200 f/4 L (and I already own some because of that) while the 17-40 uses more expensive 77mm.

 

The 17-85 is of course EF-S so anyone planning on picking up a 1DMk2 or hanging on to the lens for 5 years may find they'll have a body that can't use it. Not an issue for me though.

 

The 17-40 is better built, weather sealed, and has better focus and zoom action.

 

The 17-85 is slightly shorter (0.2") narrower (0.2") and lighter (1.4oz) so is a bit less imposing and easier on the shoulder.

 

The 17-40 lets you use drop-in filters, I guess a bonus if you use them already.

 

The 17-40 close focuses to 11 inches, the 17-85 to 14 inches.

 

The IS on the 17-85 is listed as giving a three stop advantage which I think would make it the latest IS technology. At least they didn't skimp there.

 

I guess another issue is if I get the 17-40 I'll have no issue getting it from B&H where I normally get stuff. If I get the 17-85 I'll probably want to get it locally so I can test it as there seems to be some sample variation with that lens. Getting it locally means a 7.75% tax and higher prices. After adding in tax or shipping, and other stuff like hoods or filters I'd probably spend around $700 on either lens.

 

I'd love the extra range and IS, but I refuse to spend $700 on anything with questionable optics. So, as the original post said, anyone actually doing a direct comparison would be well received.

I've been asking myself the same question as I'm pretty much in the same boat. I think WCMs comment that the 17-85 is 'MUCH BETTER LENSE' (That should be lens by the way dude) is pretty far off. You don't have to read many reviews to figure out the 17-40 knocks the pants of the 17-85 when it comes to optics.

 

The 17-40 gets compared to the 16-35 and very favorably, the only difference being the speed. The 17-40 has even been showed to offer serious competition for primes such as the 24 f/2.8

 

The 17-85 gets compared to the 28-135 and falls a little behind, being slower and having some problems with softness and chromatic aberations at the wide end of its range.

 

I think Jim Larson's point was spot on. Do you want a lens that compares well to a $1300 lens (the 17-40 and 16-35) or one that compares about even with a $420 lens (the 17-85 and 28-135). For me the answer would be obvious if it wasn't for the much improved range of the 17-85. I'm often tending to shoot longer rather than wide so I'm trying to figure out if what you loose in optics is made up for by what you gain in zoom range. At the moment I have an 18-55, 24, 24-85 and a 28-105 in the 'wide' end. Boy would it be great to get rid of some (or all) of those in favour of one lens.

>>Overnigt temps around 20 below zero(real temps, not that wimpy centigrade stuff) & see how the photos look.

 

But -20 centigrade is colder than wimpy -20 fahrenheit. :)

I think its a great lens. I often use mine (on a 300D now, previously on an Elan7E) as a general purpose lens when I want to travel light. On the Elan I thought the range was perfect. Optically its at its best at the wide end. That's where I tend to spend most of my time though, so I prefered it over the 28-105 (which I also own). I also own 24 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.8 primes as a comparison for it.

 

The lens is the equal of the 28-105, and both are well above average for consumer zooms. I think it only comes down to range. Would your wife rather have the 24-28 part or the 85-105 part? Whichever way you go, you won't be disappointed. Unless of course you wouldn't be satisfied with a 24-70 L. :)

A while back I found a link (on this forum I think) to a survey Canon

where doing of Drebel users. The first X number to complete it got a

copy of Lens Works 3. My copy just arrived, what a great book. So, a

thank you to whomever it was that posted the link. Anyone else here

get a copy?

Instead of blurring the entire picture just blur the problem areas, or go for a touch of clone brush. Easy to do, and totally invisible when done thoughtfully.

Lets cover this stuff one part at a time.

Nature photography would either be a wide lens (like your 18-55) for landscapes, or a long lens (70-300) for wildlife. Potrait on a 300D an a budget would definetly be the 50 f/1.8. Airshows, back to a long lens again.

 

Sigma could be your best bet in that they do offer the best value for money in the budget end. There is an occasional and generally overstated incompatibility problem with older lenses and newer canon bodies, but if you buy new you'll probably avoid that.

 

Yes there are specific lines for digital bodies. For instance the EF-S lenses from Canon. These are generally smaller and lighter as they are designed just to cover the smaller sensor (relative to film) of the digital SLRs. However, all the normal lenses also work on a DSLR so you are not restricted to just using the digital specific versions.

 

Any of the stores linked from this site are good (B&H, Adorama, etc). There are plenty of cheaper deals out there but these often come from untrustworthy places that will just screw you around and end up costing more in the long run.

 

So, my recommendation. Get a Canon 50 f/1.8 as it will give you a decent studio/portrait lens and something good for low light. Then, spend the rest of the best tele-zoom you can afford. Just don't expect too much from it. Most are slow, and fuzzy at the extremes of their ranges. You'd have a better time if you could track down something like a used Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 as it is better than the average consumer telezoom.

The Canon is sharper than the Sigmas, it's one of the sharpest zooms out there. Sure, not by much but it wins. It's also cheaper ($580)than either the Sigma 100-300 ex ($900) that got mentioned, or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ($800) so I'm not sure where you got the idea its more expensive? The Canon 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. It lacks some of the range of the 100-300 and some of the speed of the 70-200 f/2.8, but its smaller, lighter, much faster focusing, and better sealed. The fact that its white is the one thing against it, not the one reason to buy it.

I am so glad I got a RebelD and one of the main reasons is cost of film. I remember when trying to justify the purchase looking at how much film I use and working out how many years of photography would be needed to offset the $1000 camera with the cost of film. What that misses though is the amount of photos you can take once your not worried about developing. I did a wedding last weekend and shot 985 photos. With film I may not have taken that many in a year. In the 10 months I've had the camera I've taken just over 5,000 photos.

 

So what does this all mean. I'm learning a lot more, experimenting more, and getting some great photos at times when I may not have even used film as I didn't want to waste it. I think a digital SLR will get you better photos than buying a better lens if like me, you find yourself taking a whole lot more.

 

That and I think the jury is still out on whether the extra improvements of the 17-40 vs the 18-55 really justify the extra cost.

One of the things that makes a good portrait lens is how wide open it'll go. Part of the reason people say the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are fantastic is that because they can go so wide you can really isolate your subject from its background. To get a zoom lens that does this is really expensive (and that just gets you an f/2.8).

 

So, if you don't mind getting primes then either the 85 or 100 with film, or the 50 or 85 with digital would be a great choice. If you want to stick with zooms your need to go for the 70-200 f/4 if you'd like a longer lens or the well respected Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 if you want a more standard lens.

If your assumption is that the focus scale on even the best canon lenses are so accurate that you can use them to focus down to the nearest millimeter I think we can see the problem.

 

I'm also entertained that you'd assume a complete stranger following your approximate instructions will measure so exactly perfectly that any error has to be with the lens and not that the tape measure wasn't exactly flat or something similar.

 

Whether or not your lens has a problem is one issue, but this way won't resolve it.