What do you reckon - Page 5 - Saxperience

mattchewone · 17th March 2009, 23:05

I guess ill be keeping the 400D then

don55 · 17th March 2009, 23:07

oh right, well yer thats a great setup, but from what he was saying i think he was after a wider angled lens.

the sigma or tamron 17/18-50 2.8 would be a great option, even with a 2x possibly.

mattchewone · 17th March 2009, 23:10

Is there a better lens that has similiar range to the 17-85mm? as i quite like the range on that. 24-105L any good?

I think that would suit me, then in the far future a 70-200L(or siggy 2.8). So i'd have good range coverage.

don55 · 17th March 2009, 23:16

there are loads but it depends what you want to spend.

also do you want fixed aperture

Ryan^p · 17th March 2009, 23:19

I suspect you would love the sigma 18-50 as you are used to the shitty rotating barrel on AF with the 70-300.

Nice sharp lens, just that fucks off most people lol

mattchewone · 17th March 2009, 23:21

Well it wont be for a good 6months. Wouldnt really want to spend much more than £700/£800 tbh preferably alot less really.

I have a strange feeling that im going to regret not getting the 40D, and if i do get it i might end up regretting getting it.

On a side note, im planning on putting flooring in my loft and setting up my studio lights to take some portraits of friends and family. Quite excited. Think ill be using me nifty for it.

mattchewone · 17th March 2009, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

I suspect you would love the sigma 18-50 as you are used to the shitty rotating barrel on AF with the 70-300.

Nice sharp lens, just that fucks off most people lol

Im not that keen on that range, its not enough for me. When i go out i end up changing lenses alot and it pisses me off. I might want to take a pic of my mate and his gf and i'd have the 70-300 on so id need to be back really far or swap lens. Then i'd want to take a picture of something far away as we continue walking so i'd need to change again. Grrrrr

So something thats fairly wide and will zoom to something reasonable.

don55 · 17th March 2009, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

I suspect you would love the sigma 18-50 as you are used to the shitty rotating barrel on AF with the 70-300.

Nice sharp lens, just that fucks off most people lol

what you mean "fucks off most people" ?

i cant vouch for the sigma, but my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II is great. i know of one for sale for £200 also, if you are interested.

don55 · 17th March 2009, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Im not that keen on that range, its not enough for me. When i go out i end up changing lenses alot and it pisses me off. I might want to take a pic of my mate and his gf and i'd have the 70-300 on so id need to be back really far or swap lens. Then i'd want to take a picture of something far away as we continue walking so i'd need to change again. Grrrrr

welcome to DSLR photography lol

mattchewone · 17th March 2009, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

what you mean "fucks off most people" ?

i cant vouch for the sigma, but my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II is great. i know of one for sale for £200 also, if you are interested.

I think he means that the lens moves when AF'ing rather than with the L lenses the focus internally so nothing moves.

Ryan^p · 17th March 2009, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

what you mean "fucks off most people" ?

When you AF most decent lenses the system rotates internally, not the sigma, you get a nice bigh whine from the noisy motor and the actual barrel of the lens rotates.

It ruins a good piece of glass for me.

don55 · 17th March 2009, 23:31

oh you mean on the 70-300 sig, surely the 18-50 in inner focus, my tamron is.

Barry123 · 17th March 2009, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Do you reckon its worth trading in my 400D for a 40D???

yes.. less noise at high ISO... iso3200 as well (which is useable unlike any of the models below it) Liveview, 6.5fps shutter speed, 100,000 cycle shutter actuation. HHUUUGGE buffer, better image processing (has a processor off the 1dMkIII albeit just one as opposed to two on the mkIII). but most importantly... much better AF algorithms and cross AF sensors at f/2.8.

Worth exhanging for your 400D??? no... but it depends on the price? less than £100 I'd say yes. But get the body only. As said the kit lens is a pile of dog ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Hmm i dont know what to do lol.

I think i just like the idea of having a new bigger camera.

that's 100% the wrong reason to upgrade the body... get a battery grip for the 400D... it balances the camera better, makes the camera feels better. The the best addition to the body itself you can do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

sigma 70-300mm is not a great lens, so if you are having troubles its prob that.

It's actually not a bad lens, the af although noisey it's pretty accurate and it's pretty sharp wide open at 300mm... it's let down by the yellow colour cast and the af being pretty slow. But as versility goes, 1:2 macro and decent quality Telezoom with a £130 budget. it's bloody excellent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Spend the money on top notch glass which will serve you better. The 40D is out of date now anyway, where as a lens doesnt get outdated as often as a body

I wouldn't say out of date, more there are more update models available now. But the last part is correct as the saying goes 'Lens last a lifetime, bodies come and go' some camera nerd told me that - but he's right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Sayers 10D is really out of date in comparrison to the 400D even. (he doesnt have a 30D just the 40D and his 10D).

And the 10D still holds it's own in terms of build quality (it's a tank fucking solid thing, wish my 40D was as robust), 200,000 actuations (rated at 50,000 lol) and it's still going. Colour reproduction kicks ass out of everything bar the 1dmkIIn and above. canon went backwards since with the xxD range after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

a body cant help create a larger aperture to get a faster speed, but a nice new lens can.

Large apertures rock (provided they aren't soft as a puppy crap at that aperture). But as said above dude if the ISO range is more useable you're still able to bump the shutter speed up as a result

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Lenses to be recommended that are not ridiculous prices.

Defo what brad said... the tamron 17-whatever it is f/2.8 is excellent had a play on a mates who was doing a band shoot... it's really really good.

but telezooms

you're going to have to blow a significant chunk of gold to get something even remotely good. F/4 as a minimum tbh

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

The only reason is if i dont do the exchange soon ill have to sell my body and purchase the 40D at full price. Where as if it gets done soon ill only be paying a smaller amount

I dont understand. How much will you get from giving back the 400D and how much will you have to pay to get the 40D, full prices, not some made up jizz...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

So i should never need to upgrade the body at all then?

Why is it people buy the xxD's and not the xxxD's then? If the older ones are just as good and cheaper why do people buy the newer ones?

Man its a confusing market!

xxD's are the best version of the 1.6x crop that you can get, before you go into the realms of 1.3x and FF sensors... that's why a lot opt for the xxD series. Again, ISO, processing, AF, features and better on these models

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

yer and its still cheaper than the F4L, the IS F4Lis like £800 right ?

thank foooook i didn't pay £800 for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

yes, although prob more expensive now due to the shit £ rate atm.

My 70-200 2.8 IS L has gone up about £200 iirc in the last few months. The sigma 120-300 has shot through the roof.

don't remind me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

espec when look at the price of a new 40D without your trade in?

think about the money you ARE loosing!

If you wanted twin bodies then buy one, but dont trade yours in and then pay ontop what could nearly get a new one outright.

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod576.html

Matt, i doubt the 40D second hand are going to low in price due to the hiiiiiigh price of the 50D (it's almost in it's own pricing league compared to 20D, 30D and 40D models). but it might be worth exploring...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Don, i shoot a most stuff outside when im out with friends etc so i'd need something thats fairly wide and has a reasonable zoom.

I sometimes do portraits although since christmas and moving ive not really done a lot.

Tamron or Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 Macro.. not the non macro version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

im well confused

same man

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Surely it would be better to go for the IS version if i was to go for it, no?

it's a smidge sharper than the non-is one. but no one will ever really notice. the 70-200 F4L (IS) are canon's sharpest Zoom available. the IS is 4-5 stop so it's bladddy good, but i think IS is overrated tbh for most applications - especially for the price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Is there a better lens that has similiar range to the 17-85mm? as i quite like the range on that. 24-105L any good?

I think that would suit me, then in the far future a 70-200L(or siggy 2.8). So i'd have good range coverage.

24-105L is pants. how the fuck that can be called an L glass I'll never know.

Hope that helps!

ads

Ryan^p · 17th March 2009, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

oh you mean on the 70-300 sig, surely the 18-50 in inner focus, my tamron is.

Nope, It was a bitter dissapointment when i got it that an expensive piece of glass focused like a cheap piece of shit.

I cant stand the body rotating when i have my hand on the lens it just bugs me. Internal FTW

Barry123 · 17th March 2009, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

what you mean "fucks off most people" ?

i cant vouch for the sigma, but my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II is great. i know of one for sale for £200 also, if you are interested.

who's selling mate... sayerboy is interesteddddd

don55 · 17th March 2009, 23:40

here ads

mattchewone · 18th March 2009, 08:26

Sayer - i was only going to get the 40D+kit lens as at work thats the only one we sell. I would be doing the exchange at work.

Can i ask, if i waws to upgrade glass now, When would i find the need to upgrade body? Or is there never a need to upgrade?

don55 · 18th March 2009, 08:33

you should upgrade when YOU are finding limitations in the cameras abilities

Barry123 · 18th March 2009, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by don55

you should upgrade when YOU are finding limitations in the cameras abilities

Exactly. But that's not to be confused with your own ability or techniques. If you're doing portrait you don't need the low noise at high ISO as you'll only ever use iso100 or 200 (400 absolute max). You don't need lightning quick AF in that situation either. Or high shutter speed.

What's the difference in cost then?

mattchewone · 18th March 2009, 11:05

I paid £413.90, 40D costs - £764.10

So i cost to me of - £350.20

Thanks for the help so far! Sayer you attending the Brighton meet April 5th?