| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2005 08:30:30 PM · #1 |
Well' I've been asking questions for a long time now on this forum about DSLR, etc. I do think this is the last time I call for help BEFORE getting my new equipment. I'm going to the stroe wednesday to do the final selection and I don't want to be wrong in my choices so I'm asking all the experts here. This is what I plan to buy:
Canon 350D Digital Rebel XT with kit lens (no explanation here)
Canon 420EX Flash unit (for indoor snapshot/portrait and outdoor fill in)
Canon 50MM f/1.8 (mostly for portrait, snapshot and maybe photojournalism
Sigma 28-200MM f/3.5-5.6 asph macro (for macro, landscape candid, etc.)
Sto-Fen OM-EX omni bounce for 420EX (no explanation here)
Canon RS-60E3 remote switch
Sandisk Extreme III 1GB compact flash
Alternatives are:
Sigma EF-500 DG ST E-TTL flash unit instead of 420EX
Sigma 70-300MM f/4-5.6 APO zoom macro super II instead of the 28-200 (I fear to have a hole from 55mm to 70mm between my two zoom lenses if i go for that one)
I don't plan to upgrade from this for at least a year maybe more and I won't spend more than this for now. For that kind of budget is this the best I can get. If not wh could I change to get the most keeping in mind that I want to do both macro and landscape and that I need to have a long lense.
Thank you in advance for al the valuable advice.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:43:25 PM · #2 |
Why not the new Sigma 18-200MM f/3.5-6.3 asph macro (for macro, landscape candid, etc.)?
18mm is more useful than 28mm. I have the 18-125, which I love, and covet the new 18-200! |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:45:43 PM · #3 |
Don't worry about having a hole between 55 and 70. You'll find that you will adjust to the equipment you have rather than you needing to have every focal length to do what you want.
It looks like a great setup to jump into the SLR fray. The only additional item you might want if you don't already have it is a good stable tripod. I have the Bogen 3011B and would recommend it or it's older brother the 3021BPro.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 20:46:14. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:49:23 PM · #4 |
Same question I have been asked.. What will your primary subjects for photographing be...?
Eg, if you want to take birds, animals candid, then you need the reach and should not be worried by the gap, a minimal gap I may add, which I for one will not even think about.From my piont of view:
-Your choice of the 50mm is great...
-The remote I rarely use....
-I'm very happy with my sigma zoom, it's ok for the hobbiest.
-rather than one gig memory, I work much better with my 512Mb disks, the advantage that I can swich between shooting different subjects.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:51:35 PM · #5 |
Others will disagree, but I never like using a 50mm for portrait work. I used to have a 105mm lens that worked awesome. I would either forgo the kit lens or the 50mm. You have too much redundancy (in my opinion) in that area (3 lenses that can get around 50mm).
If you get the kit lens (18-55) and the 28-200 would cover you from 18-200.
Plus, 1GB will go pretty fast if your shooting RAW. Maybe get 2 1's or a 2.
Again, just my opinion. I am gonna be curious to find out what you think of the 420ex. Keep us posted. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:59:32 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by tadpole:
Others will disagree, but I never like using a 50mm for portrait work. I used to have a 105mm lens that worked awesome. I would either forgo the kit lens or the 50mm. You have too much redundancy (in my opinion) in that area (3 lenses that can get around 50mm). |
Yeah, I disagree. The 50mm is too much of a bargain not to buy. It doesn't matter how many lenses cover the same range. Having something as fast as a 1.8 and as sharp as that lense for ~$80 is unusual.
FWIW, I also have the 18-55mm and the 50mm and find them both useful for two entirely different reasons, without considering focal length. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:03:28 PM · #7 |
Thanks for the advice Tadpole. I'm reconsidering now my choice of lenses but I really want the 50mm for speed. The kit lens can't give me that kind os speed and pretty much all images i've seen taken with that lense were awesome. I agree fro redundancy though. The choice I want to reconsider is the 70-300 instead of the 28-200 and I'd really like to know if somebody know when the new sigma 18-200 is due and for how much it'll go. It look like an awesome lense specifically designed for digital.
Thanks to all the others that responded to this thread too. All you advice are so usefull. (Damn I wasn't aware of that 18-200 coming out!!)
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 21:05:32.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:04:37 PM · #8 |
| buying photo equipment is an adiction once you start , you can't stop |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:05:44 PM · #9 |
See, I told you! Every ones style, budget, views are different and you can get quite a wide spectrum of suggestions by simply asking folks. I love it!
I asked a few days earlier about lens choices and got about 20 different options. Chose the 17-85 IS. Thanks for the input. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:07:47 PM · #10 |
. Chose the 17-85 IS. Thanks for the input. [/quote]
save your money and go for the 16-35 L |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:08:05 PM · #11 |
The Sigma flash. Or pick up a used Metz 54-mz4 for about $300.
the 70-300 lens - the 18-200 is a 10:1 zoom (usually not great quality at the ends of its range), duplicates teh kit lens' range, and is shorter than the 300...seems to be a loser all around, unless you skip the kit lens.
1Gb card? perhaps 2 - i use 512 cards for my Rebel in large fine jpg (holds about 140 shots). If i shot raw often i'd get 1 Gb cards. The 350 probably has slightly larger files, and since it can wrte faster get Ultra 2 or other 40x speed cards. Extreme 3 is overkill - the camera cannot write that fast. If you watch at staples/bsetbuy/officedeptmax/circuit city for rebates on cards they are fairly cheap.
I got a generaic remote (corded) off ebay - cheaper than the canon and works fine. I do use it, for macro work and the like. The timer on teh 300 is 10 seconds...an eternity to wait.
If you want to do serious macro work, you'll need a macro lens or extension tubes. I went the back way round and am using an old vivitar 135mm M42 mount lens and chinese extension tubes on my rebel - shot this today, so it works. Total cost about $62.
Just so you are aware of 'alternative' solutions.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:17:50 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The Sigma flash. Or pick up a used Metz 54-mz4 for about $300. |
The Sigma flash do interest me more than the canon but I heard that E-TTL work better if the flash is the same brand than the camera. Why is the sigma a better choice?
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
the 70-300 lens - the 18-200 is a 10:1 zoom (usually not great quality at the ends of its range), duplicates teh kit lens' range, and is shorter than the 300...seems to be a loser all around, unless you skip the kit lens. |
The 70-300 have a minimum focusing distance of 37 inch at wide angle to 59 inch at telephoto would that be any good for macro? and how is the extension tube works?
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:20:07 PM · #13 |
The 50/1.8 is a great bargain and you'll use it more than you'd think. You will grow out of the 28-200 as you bump up against its limitations. none of the "super-zooms" can match the better zooms, let alone the primes.
I'd go with the previous suggestion to look at the 70-300, or better yet the Canon 70-200 f/4. Let the kit lens serve for wide angle until you can go for something better.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:22:11 PM · #14 |
Well I think the consensus here is "get away from that 28-200 and get the 70-300" wich fron the argument I read seem the best idea...
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:52:25 PM · #15 |
Ah, such a tasty subject...
I was in a similar situation to you last year and we have very similar equipment lists. Maybe I can offer some insight. If you want to see what I'm using then check my profile for my current equipment list.
1. Canon 350D Digital Rebel XT with kit lens (no explanation here)
Very very nice choice. Image quality wise, very similar to 20D, see imaging resource's and Bob Atkin's sites for actual photos/comparisons with the 20D. 18-55 is the best zoom in this zoom range in the $100 category. See Bob Atkins review of the lens.
2.Canon 420EX with Sto fen.
I've one in white and orange. Nice flash, but I wish for more control and flash power. I think Sigma's is about same price and has more power and control such as being able to manually set the focal length of the flash (I think). I really like the Sto Fen and it never comes off my flash, but rarely used the Orange/sunset color filter. The Sigma works with the E-TTL II, so it should be fully compatible and I'd recommend it over the Canon's for value.
3. Canon 50MM f/1.8
Everyone likes it, if you buy the import ones, it's less than $70. Personally, I don't like the inflexibility of primes and prefer zooms, but this is a cheap lens with good optics and everyone seems to love it. If I didn't have 4 lens and already have plans to buy 2 more, I'd probably get it as well.
4. Sigma 28-200MM f/3.5-5.6 asph macro
I would not recommend this one. Check Bob Atkins site on these really wide range zooms. They tend to be optically poor at both ends of the extreme. Poor at wide angles and poor at tele end than a 70-300mm zooms. I'd recommend the Canon's 28-105mm Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. It's about $200, very close to the Sigma's price, but I think, optically better. I think makes for better macro and general walking around lens.
5.Canon RS-60E3 remote switch
If this is a corded version, very nice to have for nightshots with a tripod. I didn't see a tripod on your list, so I would hold off on this unless you get a tripod as well, unless you intend to handhold and use a remote ;)
6. Sandisk Extreme III 1GB compact flash
I've two 1GB cards and they hold about 160 RAW shots each. With your 8MP sensor, you'll have less shots and should definately consider another one in the near future, but perhaps not right now. I used to shoot only in JPEG, but now only shoot in RAW. You may as well in the future, and if you do, you'll need more memory.
7. Sigma 70-300MM f/4-5.6 APO zoom macro super II instead of the 28-200
Good idea, I've this lens as well. Nice optics for the price category. Many say it's better than the Canon 70-300 lens and I think most would say it's optically better than the sigma 28-200. If you are concered about the gap in coverage, also consider the new Canon 55-200mm USM II, which I have as well. Sigma's 70-300 and Canon's 55-200 seem to have similar optical quality in my view and also price. The only difference I saw was in the following:
Canon is lighter, less well built (feel just like the 18-55 lens in construction), focuses MUCH faster, and takes a different sized filter. The Sigma has more range, is heavier/sturdier, comes with a hood and a bag, and takes the same 58mm filter as the 18-55 kit lens.
I find that both of the lenses are too long and hence are poor as general walking around lens. Bob Atkins has some lens combo recommendation for the Rebel and the 20D you should look at.
In summary I'd recommend the XT, Sigma flash, 1 CF card, Stofen.
You should also consider filter(s) especially circular polarizer, Tripod with remote, Camera Bag, Card Reader, and lens blower/pens.
As for lenses, I'd recommend three combos:
Kit, 28-105, and 50? if you mainly do macro, landscape, around town
Kit, 55-200, and 50? if you want more telephoto shots with no gap
Kit 70-300, and 50? if you want more telephoto, don't mind slower focus and a gap in coverage.
I agree with Kirbic, if you can afford it and don't mind the size, the 70-200mmL f4 at about $550 would be an excellent choice. As for me, I'm leaning toward a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Canon 70-200L f2.8
If I had to do it all over again, I'd get the Tokina 12-24 (ordererd), Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 (why not), Canon 55-200 (light cheap zoom), Canon or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 converter and monopod (for serious telephoto work and animals).
Many people will poo poo you unless you only buy L lenses and get atleast a 20D or 1D, but don't listen to them. Take your time and really enjoy the thrill of choosing, buying, and learning your new system. Upgrade later if you outgrow them. Lenses in excellent condition sell for almost new lens prices, so you can resell it and upgrade later, as you learn and grow. As for me, I end up collecting them, instead of buying, selling, and upgrading.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 22:12:46.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:44:34 PM · #16 |
Thanks Yido for all this good information. I looked for the 55-200 and it's an interesting lense specially after you talked about focusing speed but the problem with the combination 18-55, 55-200 and 50 f/1.8 is macro. I don't have any macro lense in there and I need one. On the other side the sigma 70-300 do have macro capability so my question is: Is the difference in focusing speed really a problem (is it like 2 or 3 times slower?) or is it just noticeable. Will it focus faster than what I have now?
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:47:38 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by nicklevy:
Thanks Yido for all this good information. I looked for the 55-200 and it's an interesting lense specially after you talked about focusing speed but the problem with the combination 18-55, 55-200 and 50 f/1.8 is macro. I don't have any macro lense in there and I need one. On the other side the sigma 70-300 do have macro capability so my question is: Is the difference in focusing speed really a problem (is it like 2 or 3 times slower?) or is it just noticeable. Will it focus faster than what I have now? |
The Sigma is not really a macro lens, it just focuses farily closely, and thus is a "close-up" lens. Buy a set of extension tubes or a high-quality diopter if you want to get closer. The 50/1.8 is a good lens to use in combination with extension tubes.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:54:19 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The Sigma is not really a macro lens, it just focuses farily closely, and thus is a "close-up" lens. Buy a set of extension tubes or a high-quality diopter if you want to get closer. The 50/1.8 is a good lens to use in combination with extension tubes. |
Would it give me real macro capability? I'm not sure I understand this extension tube thing. I did find them (Kenko) on B&H but there is no specification as if I have a lens that can focus a x distance at y focal length and I put a z extension tube it changes the focusing capability to... Is there a web page somewhere that can give some explanation about this?
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:09:20 PM · #19 |
If you really want to do macro, then you need Macro lenses that have a very short minimal focus length, a tripod, and a remote. If you are occassionally taking close up pics of flowers etc, you can get by with a kit and a 50mm lens. The Sigma has a macro feature from 200-300, but to really use it, you need lots of lighting, tripod, and a remote. If you really want to do macro of objects at home e.g. catologue photos, then you need all those and a light box for lighting. Extensions tubes on a high quality professional lens is okay, it will soften the image a bit. Extension tubes on a consumer grade lens will give you poor quality pictures. I think they work by extending your focal length without increasing the minimal focusing distance. A 1.4x tube raises the f stop by one and 2x tube raises the f stop by two. Hence your lens will be slower. Not a problem if you have lots of light, tripod, remote, and a stationary subject. Once again check Bob Atkins site on this review as well. High quality L lenses do well with tubes, consumer grade lens don't. What kind of photography do you intend to do mostly? Your equipment will really depend on your needs. If you are going to do mostly macros, get macro lenses, a light box, tripod, and a remote.
BTW, have you thought about mail ordering your stuff? I bought my original camera, lenses, flash, cards, etc from Adorama, B&H photovideo, and Beach Camera and saved about $40 or more than just ordering from one store.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 23:12:01.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:10:47 PM · #20 |
Quick Google turned up this.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:21:17 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The 50/1.8 is a great bargain and you'll use it more than you'd think. You will grow out of the 28-200 as you bump up against its limitations. none of the "super-zooms" can match the better zooms, let alone the primes.
I'd go with the previous suggestion to look at the 70-300, or better yet the Canon 70-200 f/4. Let the kit lens serve for wide angle until you can go for something better. |
This is good advice. I would take a serious look at the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 and forego the Sigma 70-300.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:56:28 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...Extreme 3 is overkill - the camera cannot write that fast. |
That made me wonder about writing speed and for people interested in maximizing their investment here's an article with a lots of charts for writing speed of camera using about 70 different card.
Camera writing speed
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 10:40:50 AM · #23 |
A true macro lens can reproduce at 1:1 - a dime will be exaclty dime sized on the film (or sensor). The 70-300 'macro' modes are at best 2:1 (1/2 size) and some are as bad as 5:1 (1/5 life size).
Canon makes the E-65 of macro lenses if you want to get serious about macros.
canon and tamron make true macro lenses that are also 100 or 90 mm prime lenses. this is the route most people take.
Here are some samples and explanations of teh different routes.
I used here the canon 50mm 1.8 with a close up filter
 I should have done manual focus, and i was about 1 inch from the drop with the lens.
 Is done with a tripod, remote, M42 mount all manual Vivitar 135mm F2.8 lens w/ adapter and extension tube #3 (the longest one) This is a 100% crop - this is the size you get. You can stack the tubes to get an even closer/bigger image. The advantage of a 135mm over a 50mm is the distance i am from the flower - i am about 16" away.
here are some other shots with the tube and lens:
this shot  is with my tamron 28-80 F3.5-5.6 at 50mm - this is as close as i can get with a regular lens. (this is also a 100% crop)
Does that help some? The M42 lens, adapter and tubes i got on eBay - total incestment abot $62, including shipping.
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 10:43:35.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 10:56:04 AM · #24 |
While I've never had the opportunity, I don't think buying 3 lenses at once is a wise idea. Why not just bank the extra money for now and see what you can get from the kit lens. After a month or so, you'll know if you want more reach, or a better low light option, or more macro ... and you can specialize from there.
I'd say kit and 50mm 1.8 and force yourself to wait a month.
milo
ps ... i only skimmed the posts, perhaps this has been said. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 11:05:24 AM · #25 |
When I got my 300D a couple of months ago it came with the USM version of the 18-55 kit kens, it is a useful little lens.
The other lens I bought were:
Canon 28-135mm IS
Sigma 135-400mm APO
Canon 50mm f1.8
I also bought the 420EX + Sto-Fen
RC-1 wireless remote
I got one 1Gb CF card with the camera, and bought a second one later.
And later got the RS 60E3 which is great when used with a tripod or monopod...however, it could do with a longer cable. When trying to get bird photos I try to keep as low as possible behind the tripod, this usually means sitting on the ground, but then my arm is in the air holding on to the remote. Anyone know of an extension lead that will fit the remote??
Steve
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 11:06:21. |
|
