Photographers - need help buying Rebel XT stuff

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PHiuR
stay away from DSLRs. they suck.

Only the cash from your wallet. Otherwise SU n00b.

 

[Triumph]

Not sure if it's been proposed yet, but the Sigma 18-50 EX lens is a good alternative to the kit lens. Almost same focal range, much faster, and much sharper.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Not sure if it's been proposed yet, but the Sigma 18-50 EX lens is a good alternative to the kit lens. Almost same focal range, much faster, and much sharper.

Beat ya. But the Sigma 18-50 has a great rep!

 

[Eos]

Thanks GTA. I didn't know about that 10-22mm. I have a new lust for the 30D...

My Sony WSC-30 is just not cutting it.

EDIT: Except the beloved 10-22 only works on the 20D. DRAT!

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: eos
Thanks GTA. I didn't know about that 10-22mm. I have a new lust for the 30D...

My Sony WSC-30 is just not cutting it.

EDIT: Except the beloved 10-22 only works on the 20D. DRAT!

The 10-22 works on the Rebel XT, 20D, and 30D

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: eos
Thanks GTA. I didn't know about that 10-22mm. I have a new lust for the 30D...

My Sony WSC-30 is just not cutting it.

EDIT: Except the beloved 10-22 only works on the 20D. DRAT!

All EFS lenses, including the 10-22, work on APS-C cameras like the EOS-20D/30D/Rebel/Rebel XT.

But if I were you, find a new EOS-20D for cheap and spend the difference on good glass. The latter is more important than the latest body.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: dowxp
I would suggest the 28-135 IS ; http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi...35mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Also the rebel doesn't take advantage of WA cards, so extreme II or even regular CF cards write at the same speeds (there was a review over this)

a nice tripod (bogen, gitzo) + ball head release grip? depends what she wants to do. maybe a lowepro case ... A second battery is recommended.

Good suggestion and it is only $30-40 more than the Tamron. A 50 mm EF II f:1.8 would make a good companion for those time that you need sharper image & better colour at wider aperatures.

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PHiuR
stay away from DSLRs. they suck.

Only the cash from your wallet. Otherwise SU n00b.

medium format (6x6 or 6x7)> dslr

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: eos
Thanks GTA. I didn't know about that 10-22mm. I have a new lust for the 30D...

My Sony WSC-30 is just not cutting it.

EDIT: Except the beloved 10-22 only works on the 20D. DRAT!

All EFS lenses, including the 10-22, work on APS-C cameras like the EOS-20D/30D/Rebel/Rebel XT.

But if I were you, find a new EOS-20D for cheap and spend the difference on good glass. The latter is more important than the latest body.

I got the glass.

20, 24, 50, 85 primes and 70-200 f/2.8L

The 10-22mm and a 30D would make my life great. Plus, I could sell the 24mm. Maybe teh 20mm.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: eos
Thanks GTA. I didn't know about that 10-22mm. I have a new lust for the 30D...

My Sony WSC-30 is just not cutting it.

EDIT: Except the beloved 10-22 only works on the 20D. DRAT!

All EFS lenses, including the 10-22, work on APS-C cameras like the EOS-20D/30D/Rebel/Rebel XT.

But if I were you, find a new EOS-20D for cheap and spend the difference on good glass. The latter is more important than the latest body.

I got the glass.

20, 24, 50, 85 primes and 70-200 f/2.8L

The 10-22mm and a 30D would make my life great. Plus, I could sell the 24mm. Maybe teh 20mm.

If you could pick one of your primes to take with you, which would it be?

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: eos
Thanks GTA. I didn't know about that 10-22mm. I have a new lust for the 30D...

My Sony WSC-30 is just not cutting it.

EDIT: Except the beloved 10-22 only works on the 20D. DRAT!

All EFS lenses, including the 10-22, work on APS-C cameras like the EOS-20D/30D/Rebel/Rebel XT.

But if I were you, find a new EOS-20D for cheap and spend the difference on good glass. The latter is more important than the latest body.

1.8" vs. 2.5" LCD is all I have to say...

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


I got the glass.

20, 24, 50, 85 primes and 70-200 f/2.8L

The 10-22mm and a 30D would make my life great. Plus, I could sell the 24mm. Maybe teh 20mm.

If you could pick one of your primes to take with you, which would it be?[/quote]

DSLR - 20mm

SLR - 24mm

The day I borrowed a 20-35mm f/2.8L changed my life. Up until then, it had been the 28-105mm. I thought 28mm was the bee's knees. Little did I know.

I love wide angle more than anything. Again, the x factor blows. Makes me sad they can't (won't?) get the factor below 1.3.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Hmmm. @20mm I see nothing faster than F2.8 (this is at B&H). I want something faster.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


I got the glass.

20, 24, 50, 85 primes and 70-200 f/2.8L

The 10-22mm and a 30D would make my life great. Plus, I could sell the 24mm. Maybe teh 20mm.

If you could pick one of your primes to take with you, which would it be?

DSLR - 20mm

SLR - 24mm

The day I borrowed a 20-35mm f/2.8L changed my life. Up until then, it had been the 28-105mm. I thought 28mm was the bee's knees. Little did I know.

I love wide angle more than anything. Again, the x factor blows. Makes me sad they can't (won't?) get the factor below 1.3.

[/quote]

Why get a 30D with a 10-22, when you can get a 5D full frame dslr, and just use the exceptional glass you already have?

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Hmmm. @20mm I see nothing faster than F2.8 (this is at B&H). I want something faster.

Just like cars, eh?

2.8 has always been good for me.

100 Astia or Provia.

400 NPH exposed at 250 ASA and processed normally.

Fuji Xtra 800 exposed at 640 ASA and processed normally.

Ilford Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and processed normally.

Those emulsions got me by in any situation.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


I got the glass.

20, 24, 50, 85 primes and 70-200 f/2.8L

The 10-22mm and a 30D would make my life great. Plus, I could sell the 24mm. Maybe teh 20mm.

If you could pick one of your primes to take with you, which would it be?

DSLR - 20mm

SLR - 24mm

The day I borrowed a 20-35mm f/2.8L changed my life. Up until then, it had been the 28-105mm. I thought 28mm was the bee's knees. Little did I know.

I love wide angle more than anything. Again, the x factor blows. Makes me sad they can't (won't?) get the factor below 1.3.

Why get a 30D with a 10-22, when you can get a 5D full frame dslr, and just use the exceptional glass you already have?[/quote]

Damn. I can't justify the cost for recreational shooting. I paid $1200 for the EOS3 and $1600 for the Bronica. That's my upper limit for light tight boxes...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


I got the glass.

20, 24, 50, 85 primes and 70-200 f/2.8L

The 10-22mm and a 30D would make my life great. Plus, I could sell the 24mm. Maybe teh 20mm.

If you could pick one of your primes to take with you, which would it be?

DSLR - 20mm

SLR - 24mm

The day I borrowed a 20-35mm f/2.8L changed my life. Up until then, it had been the 28-105mm. I thought 28mm was the bee's knees. Little did I know.

I love wide angle more than anything. Again, the x factor blows. Makes me sad they can't (won't?) get the factor below 1.3.

[/quote]

Agreed. I'd love to have a 5D but the cost...damned the cost of that box.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Not sure if it's been proposed yet, but the Sigma 18-50 EX lens is a good alternative to the kit lens. Almost same focal range, much faster, and much sharper.

Except that it is notorious for having inconsistent focus on Canon bodies. I had one, so I know what I'm talking about. Very sharp, but horrible autofocus.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
The Sigma 24-70 EX is pretty poor. Sometimes you get what you pay for. In addition to extreme softness and lack of contrast at f/2.8 and a pretty bad warm color cast, it has bad focus issues on Canon bodies (like most Sigma lenses).

You're obviously just restating things you've read and heard. You tell this guy that his lens sucks while you have nothing to show for it.

Nope, and you're stupid for making that accusation. I owned an 18-50 EX that had focusing issues. Then I owned a 24-70 EX that had focusing issues. I have many Canon lenses, including L lenses, that work great on both of my camera bodies. Shut up if you have nothing valuable to add.

What's even stupider is that you point to a particular image, when I'm talking about a focus consistency problem. I never said that the lens wouldn't take a single decent picture due to this. You also point to an f/11 landscape picture, when I'm talking about image quality issues at f/2.8 (and the f/11 would also mask focus issues). You point to a thumbnail-sized image, which makes it impossible to decently assess image quality. YOUR ARGUMENT COULDN'T BE STUPIDER. Shut up and sit down.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
1000 bucks... let's see

18-50 sigma lens (300-400 bucks)
rebel XT body (down to 500 now??)
Canon backpack (30 bucks)
Skip the extra battery, you won't need it. A battery grip would be nice though ($200)

I have the canon 17-85mm IS USM, pretty useful focal range but can't say that i'm completely satisfied with it.

The Tamron is 28-75mm and the Canon is 50mm...is it worth getting both for a beginner dSLR setup?

I have the MkI of the canon 50mm f1.8 lens with the metal mount and it's pretty nice for portrait and stuff. For some reason AF is really poor at low light conditions with that thing.

18-50 sigma is f2.8, that should be a good start... my 17-85 USM stays on 90% of the time.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
1000 bucks... let's see

18-50 sigma lens (300-400 bucks)
rebel XT body (down to 500 now??)
Canon backpack (30 bucks)
Skip the extra battery, you won't need it. A battery grip would be nice though ($200)

I have the canon 17-85mm IS USM, pretty useful focal range but can't say that i'm completely satisfied with it.

The Tamron is 28-75mm and the Canon is 50mm...is it worth getting both for a beginner dSLR setup?

Yes. I have the kit lens which I never use, the cheapo 75-300 for extra zoom, and the 50 1.8. For someone who is new to DSLR those two will be more than adequate.

If she wants to later upgrade to better lenses, at that point she can consider the more expensive ones. Even these 3 cheap ones I mentioned will be many many times better than a non SLR camera in quality and features.

Basically a small/medium zoom (tamron), portrait lens (50 mm 1.8), and if budget permits a zoom lens (75-300mm) are the ultimate beginner lenses.

do not go with the kit lens, just find a good deal on the body and get a wide angle lens. You won't regret it. 28mm is NOT wide by any stretch of imagination on a x1.6 body.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
1000 bucks... let's see

18-50 sigma lens (300-400 bucks)
rebel XT body (down to 500 now??)
Canon backpack (30 bucks)
Skip the extra battery, you won't need it. A battery grip would be nice though ($200)

I have the canon 17-85mm IS USM, pretty useful focal range but can't say that i'm completely satisfied with it.

The Tamron is 28-75mm and the Canon is 50mm...is it worth getting both for a beginner dSLR setup?

I have the MkI of the canon 50mm f1.8 lens with the metal mount and it's pretty nice for portrait and stuff. For some reason AF is really poor at low light conditions with that thing.

18-50 sigma is f2.8, that should be a good start... my 17-85 USM stays on 90% of the time.

Unless you actually have the Sigma 18-50, it's not good to recommend especially to a beginner. The 17-85 would be a good lens to recommend for a beginner due to the decent image quality, great range, and the IS.

 

[alphatarget1]

sigma 18-50 f2.8

One thing about the flash is that i don't know if sigmas have distance data is compatible with canon flashes... might want to look into that.

I highly disagree on getting a telephoto lens for those of you who are suggesting it, especially cheap ones. You will probably need a bright sunny day to be able to use it at a high enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake, especially at 300mm. Why does a beginner need 300x1.6 = 480mm of focal length?? I started with the 17-85mm USM and then I found a good deal on a tokina 100-300mm f4 for 350 bucks, and I rarely use it (didn't bring it to Europe).

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
sigma 18-50 f2.8

One thing about the flash is that i don't know if sigmas have distance data is compatible with canon flashes... might want to look into that.

I have actually had this lens. It does post distance data to the flash. However, it has inconsistent AF.

You have done great disservice by posting a link to reviews populated largely by Nikon users (if you delve into the personal profiles of many posters, you figure out that many use Nikon gear where there isn't a problem). If you take out the ones that you can figure out use Nikon, and read the dissatisfied reviews from others using Canon due to poor AF, the situation is much different. In addition, some people have voted multiple times on those reviews, such as "fstopjojo" (who also voted as "canonlight"), a notorious Sigma fanboy.

The reason that some Sigma lenses have poor AF performance on Canon bodies is that Sigma is forced to reverse-engineer the protocol between the lens and the body. This afflicts even high-end lenses like the 120-300 f/2.8 EX. Sigma lenses are known to have good autofocus on Nikon and Minolta mounts (don't have experience of others).

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
The Sigma 24-70 EX is pretty poor. Sometimes you get what you pay for. In addition to extreme softness and lack of contrast at f/2.8 and a pretty bad warm color cast, it has bad focus issues on Canon bodies (like most Sigma lenses).

You're obviously just restating things you've read and heard. You tell this guy that his lens sucks while you have nothing to show for it.

Nope, and you're stupid for making that accusation. I owned an 18-50 EX that had focusing issues. Then I owned a 24-70 EX that had focusing issues. I have many Canon lenses, including L lenses, that work great on both of my camera bodies. Shut up if you have nothing valuable to add.

What's even stupider is that you point to a particular image, when I'm talking about a focus consistency problem. I never said that the lens wouldn't take a single decent picture due to this. You also point to an f/11 landscape picture, when I'm talking about image quality issues at f/2.8 (and the f/11 would also mask focus issues). You point to a thumbnail-sized image, which makes it impossible to decently assess image quality. YOUR ARGUMENT COULDN'T BE STUPIDER. Shut up and sit down.

my f1.8 50mm canon doesn't focus very well in the dark...