Photographers - need help buying Rebel XT stuff

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: 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.

wow, thaaaaaaanks. I just googled it to find a link. My friend just bought that lens and I didn't hear him complain about anything. I'll ask him later tonight. He picked that lens over the 17-85mm IS USM lens that I have.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 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...

That's partly because in the dark, you will be using a very wide aperture, and the depth of field will be very small. The 50mm 1.8 (which I also have) uses what's called a "stepper" motor, which advances the focus in increments, not smoothly. This results in a well-known issue when the correct focus would lie in between two of the steps. Many people buy the 50 1.4 just for better build and AF, because its optical quality at 1.4 is not great and it's not significantly optically better than the 1.8.

In addition, the Rebel XT (I have one in addition to a 1D Mk II) is not the greatest camera at focusing in low light compared to other bodies; it's one of its few flaws. You really need at least a 20D or other body to start taking full advantage of low-light AF ability. The 20D and 30D have three times more accurate autofocus vs. the XT when using an f/2.8 lens or faster, even before considering things like flashes with AF assist beams. Pro bodies have even more advanced focus capability.

 

[torpid]

The remote is definitely worth it. The timer sucks and you can't take rapid fire photos with it. The remote is inexpensive and works incredibly well. Must have for rebel XTs, IMO.

 

[Kaido]

Wow I think this is the first time one of my threads has ever made it to the Hot Topics section :Q Here's the list that I will keep updated:

http://www.wiredbynature.org/temp/dSLR.txt

Going to start off with the Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 Autofocus lens and go from there.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: torpid
The remote is definitely worth it. The timer sucks and you can't take rapid fire photos with it. The remote is inexpensive and works incredibly well. Must have for rebel XTs, IMO.

Which, the wired or wireless?

 

[torpid]

Didn't know there was a wired remote. I have the wirless one.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Kaido
Wow I think this is the first time one of my threads has ever made it to the Hot Topics section :Q Here's the list that I will keep updated:

http://www.wiredbynature.org/temp/dSLR.txt

Going to start off with the Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 Autofocus lens and go from there.

Good choice.

In answer to your other question, you may want both. The wireless remote doesn't have the ability to fire from beside or behind the camera (without some sort of mirror apparatus), and introduces a bit of lag until the shutter fires. The wired remote is great for use when you're standing next to the tripod or holding the camera, but you obviously need to be next to the camera.

 

[torpid]

There's not much lag at all with the wireless. Maybe if you are shooting sports it will be noticeable, but for portraits it is awfully quick. I think I was getting at least 3-4 shots per second.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: torpid
There's not much lag at all with the wireless. Maybe if you are shooting sports it will be noticeable, but for portraits it is awfully quick. I think I was getting at least 3-4 shots per second.

You probably don't shoot portraits of babies or small children. For normal portraits it could work, but you'd likely be behind the camera anyway where you can't use it. For these reasons the wired remote is better for portraits.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: torpid
There's not much lag at all with the wireless. Maybe if you are shooting sports it will be noticeable, but for portraits it is awfully quick. I think I was getting at least 3-4 shots per second.

With the XT? How do you get more FPS than what the camera is rated for?

 

[torpid]

It's rated at 3 shots per second. Maybe I got more like 2-3. There was definitely not any noticeable lag.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: torpid
It's rated at 3 shots per second. Maybe I got more like 2-3. There was definitely not any noticeable lag.

Which is it, not much lag at all or not any? I definitely notice a lag. In addition it's easy to fire off bursts with the wired remote, to half-depress the shutter to adjust focus, etc. The wireless remote is useful for when you must be away from the camera, such as in self-portraits; otherwise the wired is better. I have both, so I know what I'm talking about.

In addition, there's no reason not to have both. They're cheap, and you can get a knockoff wired remote on eBay for cheap.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 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...

That's partly because in the dark, you will be using a very wide aperture, and the depth of field will be very small. The 50mm 1.8 (which I also have) uses what's called a "stepper" motor, which advances the focus in increments, not smoothly. This results in a well-known issue when the correct focus would lie in between two of the steps. Many people buy the 50 1.4 just for better build and AF, because its optical quality at 1.4 is not great and it's not significantly optically better than the 1.8.

In addition, the Rebel XT (I have one in addition to a 1D Mk II) is not the greatest camera at focusing in low light compared to other bodies; it's one of its few flaws. You really need at least a 20D or other body to start taking full advantage of low-light AF ability. The 20D and 30D have three times more accurate autofocus vs. the XT when using an f/2.8 lens or faster, even before considering things like flashes with AF assist beams. Pro bodies have even more advanced focus capability.

I have a Sigma (bigma is more like it) 24-70mm f/2.8 and can attest to the noisy, slow, and sometimes poor autofocus. I was not at all impressed by this lens. Optically it takes decent pictures but the barrel would creep and it would bind up as you got out near 70mm. I wouldn't waste my money on this lens. I never use it anymore favoring my Canon 17-40mm f/4 L series lens or the 50mm f/1.4.

The Canon lenses are far superior and worth the extra money IMO.

 

[randomlinh]

I love my sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Yeah, it does have some trouble w/ the AF sometimes... but I don't have a replacement for it. the 17-40 f/4L is more expensive.. and those extra stops are really nice to have. I just don't know if I'm willing to give it up, heh. Altho, I might have to as money is a little tight.. and leave the wide angle out of my box (i have a 50/85/70-200 in addition).

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
I love my sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Yeah, it does have some trouble w/ the AF sometimes... but I don't have a replacement for it. the 17-40 f/4L is more expensive.. and those extra stops are really nice to have. I just don't know if I'm willing to give it up, heh. Altho, I might have to as money is a little tight.. and leave the wide angle out of my box (i have a 50/85/70-200 in addition).

Canon makes a 16-35mm f/2.8 lens which is incredible but very expensive. I wish I could afford it but it's just too expensive IMO. I'm not a professional photographer so I really have no need for such a lens...it would be nice though.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
I love my sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Yeah, it does have some trouble w/ the AF sometimes... but I don't have a replacement for it. the 17-40 f/4L is more expensive.. and those extra stops are really nice to have. I just don't know if I'm willing to give it up, heh. Altho, I might have to as money is a little tight.. and leave the wide angle out of my box (i have a 50/85/70-200 in addition).

I hear ya... when that lens is good, it's great. I got in the habit of shooting a lot more frames just to get some that were in perfect focus, because optically it can't be beat. I gave it up with regret, after missing one too many great baby pictures (I bought it for use as a baby lens). If I ever buy a Nikon or Sony SLR, the Sigma 18-50 EX will be bought the same day. It's a shame that Canon doesn't work with third-party vendors better.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid
It's rated at 3 shots per second. Maybe I got more like 2-3. There was definitely not any noticeable lag.

Which is it, not much lag at all or not any? I definitely notice a lag. In addition it's easy to fire off bursts with the wired remote, to half-depress the shutter to adjust focus, etc. The wireless remote is useful for when you must be away from the camera, such as in self-portraits; otherwise the wired is better. I have both, so I know what I'm talking about.

In addition, there's no reason not to have both. They're cheap, and you can get a knockoff wired remote on eBay for cheap.

So instead of making your point you are acting like a jerk to try to look clever? Interesting. Like I said, the lag is hardly noticeable for portraits. Maybe when you first press it there is lag, but when you keep pressing it you get a good burst rate. I have the wired remote, I know what I'm talking about. [Edit to clarify the mockery - I have the wireless one, not the wired one]

The reason not to have both is that the wired remote is useful less often.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid
It's rated at 3 shots per second. Maybe I got more like 2-3. There was definitely not any noticeable lag.

Which is it, not much lag at all or not any? I definitely notice a lag. In addition it's easy to fire off bursts with the wired remote, to half-depress the shutter to adjust focus, etc. The wireless remote is useful for when you must be away from the camera, such as in self-portraits; otherwise the wired is better. I have both, so I know what I'm talking about.

In addition, there's no reason not to have both. They're cheap, and you can get a knockoff wired remote on eBay for cheap.

So instead of making your point you are acting like a jerk to try to look clever? Interesting. Like I said, the lag is hardly noticeable for portraits. Maybe when you first press it there is lag, but when you keep pressing it you get a good burst rate. I have the wired remote, I know what I'm talking about.

The reason not to have both is that the wired remote is useful less often.

And why not get both, they're only ~$20 each. $40 for both doesn't sound like a bad deal

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Kaido
And why not get both, they're only ~$20 each. $40 for both doesn't sound like a bad deal

Getting both is certainly a lot more logical than saying get only the wired one anyway.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Kaido
And why not get both, they're only ~$20 each. $40 for both doesn't sound like a bad deal

Getting both is certainly a lot more logical than saying get only the wired one anyway.

I think you have multiple personality disorder. Have a nice day, and pass that along to your brainmates.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Kaido
And why not get both, they're only ~$20 each. $40 for both doesn't sound like a bad deal

Getting both is certainly a lot more logical than saying get only the wired one anyway.

I think you have multiple personality disorder. Have a nice day, and pass that along to your brainmates.

Thanks for proving my point about the whole jerk / trying to look clever thing.

Have fun photographing babies. Somehow I doubt that the person who will be buying this camera is going to do that. But then again, sticking to the budget he listed seems to be at the bottom of the priority list for most of you guys, who instead want to go on and on abotu some random tangents that don't relate to helping the guy.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Kaido
And why not get both, they're only ~$20 each. $40 for both doesn't sound like a bad deal

Getting both is certainly a lot more logical than saying get only the wired one anyway.

I think you have multiple personality disorder. Have a nice day, and pass that along to your brainmates.

Thanks for proving my point about the whole jerk / trying to look clever thing.

Have fun photographing babies. Somehow I doubt that the person who will be buying this camera is going to do that. But then again, sticking to the budget he listed seems to be at the bottom of the priority list for most of you guys, who instead want to go on and on abotu some random tangents that don't relate to helping the guy.

Eh?

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Kaido
And why not get both, they're only ~$20 each. $40 for both doesn't sound like a bad deal

Getting both is certainly a lot more logical than saying get only the wired one anyway.

I think you have multiple personality disorder. Have a nice day, and pass that along to your brainmates.

LOL

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Kaido
Eh?

The guy retro-editted one of his posts to talk about taking portraits of babies with the wired remote after previously saying how slow it was. It's not slow, and is probably going to be useful a lot more often than the wired remote. Those were my main points before the guy went off on some wild goose chase.

I personally would spend the $20 on something else other than a wired remote, but you should leave that up to her. Definitely get the wireless one though.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Kaido
And why not get both, they're only ~$20 each. $40 for both doesn't sound like a bad deal

Getting both is certainly a lot more logical than saying get only the wired one anyway.

I think you have multiple personality disorder. Have a nice day, and pass that along to your brainmates.

Thanks for proving my point about the whole jerk / trying to look clever thing.

Have fun photographing babies. Somehow I doubt that the person who will be buying this camera is going to do that. But then again, sticking to the budget he listed seems to be at the bottom of the priority list for most of you guys, who instead want to go on and on abotu some random tangents that don't relate to helping the guy.

Let's analyze some of your recent posts, jackass:

Originally posted by: torpid
Didn't know there was a wired remote. I have the wirless one.

Originally posted by: torpid
There's not much lag at all with the wireless. Maybe if you are shooting sports it will be noticeable, but for portraits it is awfully quick. I think I was getting at least 3-4 shots per second.

(Over the rated speed of the camera, as noted elswhere.)

Originally posted by: torpid
It's rated at 3 shots per second. Maybe I got more like 2-3. There was definitely not any noticeable lag.

So now there's definitely not any noticeable lag...

Originally posted by: torpid
So instead of making your point you are acting like a jerk to try to look clever? Interesting. Like I said, the lag is hardly noticeable for portraits. Maybe when you first press it there is lag, but when you keep pressing it you get a good burst rate. I have the wired remote, I know what I'm talking about.

The reason not to have both is that the wired remote is useful less often.

When you press the shutter release multiple times, you are not shooting bursts. In addition, there IS a lag when pressing the shutter multiple times. Of course, you will now probably deny it, then affirm it, then deny it and call me a scoundrel. It doesn't change reality.

You have a lot of... issues. I'm not acting like a jerk, just pointing out your inconsistency and false claims. You lied about having the wired remote, and anyone with a decent amount of experience knows that the wired remote is not only faster and more reliable, it has extra features and is useful MORE often, not less. Just one example: some people use it when handholding the camera in situations when a tripod/monopod can't be used, to minimize camera shake. When shooting landscapes and portraits, you are behind the camera except when you need to be away from it, which occurs very infrequently except for family self-portraits, etc.

You sound like a lying snapshooter to me, and you're snotty to boot.