Are you using a tripod and shutter release?

 

So I was looking into that lens as well but without the IS. Does the IS really make that big of a difference? I've seen some awesome pictures & read great reviews on the non IS version. Just trying to see if the extra 500-600 is worth it. I was doing some more research & it seems I can get a lot more range capability if I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8L + 50mm f/1.4 & just use my kit lens for the wide-angle shots. Thoughts?

 

IS is worth about 2 shutter stops, so if you shoot indoors or light light photography, the IS is worth every penny.

But, if you shoot mostly outdoor stuff where the lighting is sufficient, there is no need for IS. Also, if you use a good body (ie 1D MKII) where the high ISO performance is solid, you can turn up the ISO to ~ 1600 or 3200 and still be able to stop the action. The 70-200 f/2.8L non IS is actually sharper and faster than the IS version.

Depending on what you shoot, you might want to spend the $500-600 on the 17-40 f/4.0L lens for your wide angle shots. Tamron is releasing the 17-50 f/2.8 (or 55, I forget) in the US within the next few weeks.

 

^ Good info. Thanks!

 

I disagree with "gr?". IS is worth every penny even outdoors, especially with cars! I continuously use my 100-400 IS L for motion tracks (pan) of cars at track events. It is only by such technology that smooth, blur free motion tracks would consistently be possible.

I am happy enough with it that I am about to pick up the 24-105 IS L which Canon offers as a medium range lens! I think that says enough about it.

 

Incidentally...if you want a Canon 17-40L, I am about to sell mine. It has taken most if not all of the photographs I have posted here, both of exotic cars and of my own. It is an excellent lens!

 

That's one of the few exceptions (panning outdoors) but you are using shutter speeds below ~ 1/250. I should've been more specific but when I stated outdoor photography, this was meant for shutter speeds generally 1/500 and faster since there is ample light. Anything above ~ 1/250 and IS should be turned off (unless panning) since it slows autofocus by about 1/3rd of a second.

 

It depends on what you shoot. If you'll be shooting a lot of cars, the 17-40L would be a good pick. Or you can get a UWA.

 

Flowers for mothers day.

 

Hey Guys .... I am about 2 steps away from joining the club here

I've got my eyes set on

1) Canon 350D
2) Nikon D50

With either camera, I will be starting out with the Sigma 30/1.4
Now .... looking and researching and thinking ... I'd eventually want a telephoto lens, something like a 100/2 or an 85/1.8 or so ... and it appears that Canon is easier to get lenses for. Knowing me and my "hobbies", I'll get carried away with this and won't be happy ending up "waiting" for a Nikon mount lens to be released. So .. I have about 99% convinced myself to head in the Canon direction ....

can anyone say anything bad about the D-Reb? A friend uses one and loves it, and I have no real experience, other than playing around in the stores with a Nikon ...

Price ... it's a $50 wash either way ... so the better camera will get the nod from me.

Input is much appreciated

Thanks guys,
Jim

 

Hey Jim,

I pretty much just started myself & got the XT. The only thing I feel that some folks may not like is the size. For me I think it's fine but for others, they may think it's a bit small/cramped for a DSLR especially if you plan on using larger telephoto lenses. You can add the battery grip to increase the size in those situations for better handling but it still may feel cramped if you have big fingers/hands.

For the price of what you get though, it handles like a champ. I love mine.

Good luck!

 

Okay, here are my front runners before I pull the trigger:

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = Approx. $700
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L = Approx. $1200

Which one would you choose & why? Obviously the 17-40mm is the more affordable one but if you had to line these up side-by-side, which one will provide you with the best overall performance & picture quality? TIA.

 

What about the Sigma 24-70EX .... from what I read and look at with my super-newbie-untrained eyes .... it is near every bit as good as the Canon at half the cost.

Why not stick with what you have right now and work on your skills? That is my plan ... grab a prime .... prove to myself (and others) I am good at this ... and "earn" my other lenses.

If you got the cash ... go for it though

 

If I had the money, I would've gotten the 24-70mm as a general lens, but I went with the 17-40mm as my first L lens instead. Got it for $528 (from Dell after combined coupon discounts).

 

Naw...I've decided to stick with Canon lenses (nothing against Sigma or any of the other lenses). Just personal preference like how some folks like sticking with NISMO stuff. Trust me I've been practicing like crazy with my current lens & I can already point out all the flaws it has. So I'm itchin to step up to some pro-series lenses especially since I've been recently asked to do several photoshoots on the side (i.e. auto, events, & parties).

So as an owner, what are some pros & cons of that lens? Obviously it takes great pics from just looking at syf0n's work. So my real question is...if they both cost the same, which one would you have gotten? Why?

 

Well since I'm still a newb in the dSLR area, I would have to say that I don't have much of a basis of comparison to indicate cons revolving around the 17-40mm lens. I mean, my pictures tend to be crisper and overall better than with the kit lens, but that is the extent of my knowledge of the differences between the two. I would like a better focal depth, but I guess that a 70-200mm would be a better [next] lens for that... I think the lens would've been better (and much more expensive) if the 17-40mm were to have been a f/2.8L... Some people say that the 17-40mm is a bit slow, but I honestly can tell the difference. Need more lenses in order to be able to compare better, I guess

I would have gotten the 24-70mm over the 17-40mm if I was in a better financial position b/c of the reviews (in favor of the 24-70mm) that I have read and gotten from a couple of photog boards.

I do think I've found my desired niche, that is, I now know that I am a fan of macro (close-up) shots. So a good macro lens is what I am thinking about next...

 

[url=http://imageshack.us][img=http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5923/19rojar25carbonbba365vl.jpg][

 

 

Nice! Where did you take that picture at?

 

[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/3729/19rojar25carbonbba362sj.jpg[