-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
Canon 600D Official Owners Thread - Anything 600D Related
- Thread starter downs523
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,781
- Name
- Shayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Dave1 said:
Without starting a debate I have to say that better all around is a big stretch. The only advantage this lens has is it slight range advantage. That's it.. 17-55 is much faster with a constant aperture and stopped down to equal the fastest stop of the 15-85 there is no comparison in the sharpness . The range is nice but imo I think the constant aperture alone put the 17-55 far ahead. I'm not saying that the 15-85 is not a good lens because it is. I think its popularity has a lot to do with its price range.
- Messages
- 7,505
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My main reasons:
Slightly cheaper, but pretty similar IQ.
It is NOT the super dust suction magnet that the 17-55 is.
The extra reach is a big plus for a walkaround.
It doesn't weigh as much.
I don't own either (but have used both) so opinion wise I'm not biased by wanting my lens to be the chosen one
.
All just my own opinion of course.
Slightly cheaper, but pretty similar IQ.
It is NOT the super dust suction magnet that the 17-55 is.
The extra reach is a big plus for a walkaround.
It doesn't weigh as much.
I don't own either (but have used both) so opinion wise I'm not biased by wanting my lens to be the chosen one
.All just my own opinion of course.
- Messages
- 1,781
- Name
- Shayne
- Edit My Images
- No
jillybean said:
The 17-55 is not only 2.8 but the big thing is it's constant 2.8 meaning as you zoom into different ranges the aperture does not change like most consumer lenses. This feature is found in most if not all pro lenses. The advantage is that there is much less time spent resetting your settings every time you make a small focal range adjustment. The aperture stays the same. My experience has been once you have had this feature you will not want a lens that does not have it.
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know you weren't answering my post Dave but it does help with my question, posted on here a few days ago.
quote: I am considering changing the kit lens for the 15-85 for the extra width and zoom.....any thoughts on that, I would say I did consider the 17-55 because of it having a fixed f2.8 but as I already have the 50mm 1.4 it seemed the wrong way to go.
- Messages
- 678
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
primrosegirl said:
With the 50 1.4 you only have a fixed aperture at 50mm whereas with the 17-55 you have f2.8 across the zoom range.
Personally I found those extra stops of light (over the 15-85) far more useful then the extra reach.
Also, as already stated, the image quality is superior to the 15-85, and at the end of the day don't we all want to make the best looking photos we can possibly make?
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes Richard that's very true!
I just wondered if it will make a great deal of diference at the wide end, I want to be able to take landscapes, and really don't want to buy another lens to give me the width I'll need.
- Messages
- 678
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I always found 17mm plenty wide enough for my landscape shots and I was never hankering for anything wider.
I will admit that I did consider something ultrawide like the Sigma 10-22 but in the end I found that most of my pics were shot above 17mm so I decided not to although since moving to full frame I have my eye on a 14mm f2.8L ultra wide angle!
I will admit that I did consider something ultrawide like the Sigma 10-22 but in the end I found that most of my pics were shot above 17mm so I decided not to although since moving to full frame I have my eye on a 14mm f2.8L ultra wide angle!
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I always found 17mm plenty wide enough for my landscape shots and I was never hankering for anything wider.
I will admit that I did consider something ultrawide like the Sigma 10-22 but in the end I found that most of my pics were shot above 17mm so I decided not to although since moving to full frame I have my eye on a 14mm f2.8L ultra wide angle!
Richard, I think you've helped me make up my mind!
Yes, as you said in you earlier reply, we all want the best quality shots....that's why I just bought the 100mm f2.8 IS USM and it's amazing! I love the shallow DOF it gives and bokeh!
Pretty Thistle Flower by Primrose_girl, on Flickr
- Messages
- 1,781
- Name
- Shayne
- Edit My Images
- No
primrosegirl said:Yes Richard that's very true!
I just wondered if it will make a great deal of diference at the wide end, I want to be able to take landscapes, and really don't want to buy another lens to give me the width I'll need.
The 15-85 may give you a bit wider shoot but is it a useable shoot. Most lenses are not as good at the beginning and end of their focal range. Even the 17-55 is not as good at 17 as it is at 18. The 15-85 is not good at 15 and doesn't clear up till around 20m. It is also not very good on the long side at 85 either. So what one should consider is the "usable" focal range when comparing lenese. I'm not saying that either lens is the best choice for wide angle shoots because if that is what you are after you should consider a dedicated wide angle lens. I am saying the 17-55 is a good choice for a walk around lens because it can be used as wide as 18m for a excellent wide shoot without changing lenses. Point is if the 15-85 was as good in image quality as the 17-55 and was as fast it would be the lens to beat because of its range, but the fact is it is not.
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think I will go for the 17-55 Shayne, although I want it for landscapes I also want it to be a walk around also, and as Richard said he thinks it will be better for quality also!
So after just purchasing the 100mm macro, it will be a while before I can justify the outlay!
primrosegirl said:
Thanks for all the exchange of ideas it's helped in decision making. I am going for the 17-50 Tamron only because of price & because also going for the canon 100mm macro! and my budget cannot support both regrettably! All your comments have been much appreciated.
- Messages
- 146
- Name
- Kevin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A friend of mine's been looking at the 600D but is tempted by the 650D and has asked me for advice.
Can anyone help me guide him on what's a better buy?
Thanks.
Can anyone help me guide him on what's a better buy?
Thanks.
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jilly, what a coincidence! How are you enjoying your 100mm? Did you get the L IS? I find it a bit heavy, but with the wonderful results you get, it's so worth it! I will wait until I can afford the 17-55mm, meanwhile continue to use my kit lens, which is not at all bad, but if all the comments are right..... ( which I'm sure they are ) it's going to be worth the wait!
- Messages
- 1
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi everyone,
well, I've finally gone and done it...after weeks of deliberation, I have finally dipped my toes into the DSLR market, and today ordered my 650D from Jessops.
I'm nervous and excited all at the same time, and I hope you guys will be able to help me through the learning curve I'm about to go on. As I couldn't find a 650D owners thread, I hope it's ok to pitch up here.
Hopefully, my new toy should arrive tomorrow, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with it, and chatting with you guys over the coming days, weeks etc.
well, I've finally gone and done it...after weeks of deliberation, I have finally dipped my toes into the DSLR market, and today ordered my 650D from Jessops.
I'm nervous and excited all at the same time, and I hope you guys will be able to help me through the learning curve I'm about to go on. As I couldn't find a 650D owners thread, I hope it's ok to pitch up here.
Hopefully, my new toy should arrive tomorrow, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with it, and chatting with you guys over the coming days, weeks etc.
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi everyone,
well, I've finally gone and done it...after weeks of deliberation, I have finally dipped my toes into the DSLR market, and today ordered my 650D from Jessops.
I'm nervous and excited all at the same time, and I hope you guys will be able to help me through the learning curve I'm about to go on. As I couldn't find a 650D owners thread, I hope it's ok to pitch up here.
Hopefully, my new toy should arrive tomorrow, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with it, and chatting with you guys over the coming days, weeks etc.
Congrats Steve, I am a fairly new owner of a 600D, I don't know what the differences are between the two, but I'm sure you'll have fun with it.....I am!
primrosegirl said:Jilly, what a coincidence! How are you enjoying your 100mm? Did you get the L IS? I find it a bit heavy, but with the wonderful results you get, it's so worth it! I will wait until I can afford the 17-55mm, meanwhile continue to use my kit lens, which is not at all bad, but if all the comments are right..... ( which I'm sure they are ) it's going to be worth the wait!
Hi Jen, not yet got the 100mm but hoping by end of month I will - it all gets so expensive doesn't it. I really wanted the canon 17-55 & welcome all the advice guys on this forum are giving, but also had assurances elsewhere that the Tamron quality is now much better & it's not bad alternative for the £. Re the 100mm I think it will be the L IS although still bit unsure if really need the IS as likely to be using a tripod a lot. How do you find it, do you do much macro without tripod?
- Messages
- 1,781
- Name
- Shayne
- Edit My Images
- No
stifflee said:Hi everyone,
well, I've finally gone and done it...after weeks of deliberation, I have finally dipped my toes into the DSLR market, and today ordered my 650D from Jessops.
I'm nervous and excited all at the same time, and I hope you guys will be able to help me through the learning curve I'm about to go on. As I couldn't find a 650D owners thread, I hope it's ok to pitch up here.
Hopefully, my new toy should arrive tomorrow, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with it, and chatting with you guys over the coming days, weeks etc.
I read a little about and from what I remember its basically the same slr but with a better video side. Also the touch screen is a nice update. So I think most of the info that you want to learn could be taken from the 600D side. Don't be shy, start you own 650d thread. I'm sure there are a lot of people that would enjoy it. Enjoy your new toy....
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jilly, if you're going to use a tripod all the time, you probably won't need IS. I normally just shoot when I see something, and don't have a tri/monopod available. The shot of the thistle was taken in a windy day hand held, the IS is amazing!
- Messages
- 14,766
- Name
- Michael
- Edit My Images
- No
From what I have seen, these are what the 650d has different to the 600d
It is able to use the new stm lenses to their full potential, giving a smoother quieter operation and constant af during video and live view mode, currently the 2 lenses are 40mm pancake and a new 18-135 with the stm tag, these will still work as a normal lens on any other body
650d also adds a faster frame rate at something arund the 5fps mark.
Iso performance is very similar indeed, from wht I have seen. But it's top iso has been upped to 25600
The screen is now also a touch screen on the 650d, working like an iphone/ galaxy s2, but of course you can still use those buttons.
The 600d is a super camera and excellent for it's price, if you need the extras then I would suggest the 650d, but if not you would be more than happy with a 600d
Hope that helps
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 678
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IS will let you use longer shutter speeds as it can help eliminate camera shake.
IS is very handy to have, as long you remember to turn it off when using a tripod where it can introduce camera shake as it tries to compensate for movement that isn't there.
IS is very handy to have, as long you remember to turn it off when using a tripod where it can introduce camera shake as it tries to compensate for movement that isn't there.
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes Richard that's right, as I normally don't walk around with a tripod, it's invaluable. I just didn't quite get what Shayne was saying, so thanks for that!
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm sure you won't be disappointed Jilly! We just have to save up for the 17-55mm now!!
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I also upgraded to a 600D from a FZ28....I still love it, I wouldn't part with it for the world! It's the one I grab first.
I agree the 50mm is terrific in low light, I got the 1.4, and love the results. I'm really enjoying the Canon, I went on a one day DSLR photography course with Jessops, and learned a lot!
The guys on here are very helpful too!
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That is so funny Richard, I was thinking about you today, knowing you'd upgraded to a 5D, I thought I wonder if he'll be selling his 17-55!! Lol!!
Well if you've still got it when I can spare the cash, I'll let you know, but if you're going to put it on ebay, don't wait for me because it will be a while!!
- Messages
- 1,781
- Name
- Shayne
- Edit My Images
- No
primrosegirl said:I don't understand what you mean Shayne. Sorry being a bit stupid here!
What I mean is that wail your thinking about buying a lens, fast vs slow, I.s. vs non I.s you think about all the times you will not need the extra light or the stablization. Surely you will be fine during those times..
Its the times that you have what you think could be the perfect composition for a shot and you go to shoot it and realize that you don't have enough light.
It even worse when you take a shot and can't wait to see it at home only to realize its blurred because of camera shake.
Those my friend are the times you will miss not having the extra features.... that's all I mean by you wont miss them till you need them.
- Messages
- 119
- Name
- Jen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Gotcha! Thanks Shayne.
- Messages
- 678
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I went for the 24-70 f/2.8L. It's an awesome lens!
The 17-55 equates to 27-88 when you factor in the 1.6 crop sensor on the 600D so I loose something on the long end but gain some width which is great for me as I'm saving for a 70-200 f/2.8L.
If loosing the long end was a concern you could get the 24-105 f/4L IS but you loose the 2.8 which to me is more important than IS.
I also upgraded to a 600D from a FZ28....I still love it, I wouldn't part with it for the world! It's the one I grab first.
I agree the 50mm is terrific in low light, I got the 1.4, and love the results. I'm really enjoying the Canon, I went on a one day DSLR photography course with Jessops, and learned a lot!
The guys on here are very helpful too!
You mean you wouldn't part with the FZ28? I sold mine, haha. I did enjoy using it though, playing with the PASM modes are what got me interested in photography in the first place.
I admit, I've not had the 1.8 long and I am already tempted to move up to the 1.4
. Thanks for the welcome.
- Messages
- 1,781
- Name
- Shayne
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,781
- Name
- Shayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Which version did you go with 1 0r 2? I can't figure out what lens I will go with to replace my 17-55 when I go full frame. Each time I research it I end up back on the 24-70. I just don't know if I will like the none i.s. part. The other thing is what version of the 24-70 will i choose. If I go with the 5d mrk2 I will probably go with the first version. I read that the new version with the 5d mrk3 is absolutely superb because it takes advantage of the 24-70 latest updates (what ever that means) lol.
I'm very surprised that Canon did a new version of this lens and did not add the i.s. to it. There seems to be a big gap in choices for walk around lenses for full frame. They almost doubled the price but chose to leave this out again??
You are in for a treat with the 70-200! I have the 70-200 mrk2 and wow!
Meteor shower!!!
So I am thinking fo trying to get some shots of the meteor shower that is happening. I have heard that Monday of Tuesday next week is the best time.
Has anybody done anything similar as I would really appreciate some advice on settings to capture the best effect/picture.
So I am thinking fo trying to get some shots of the meteor shower that is happening. I have heard that Monday of Tuesday next week is the best time.
Has anybody done anything similar as I would really appreciate some advice on settings to capture the best effect/picture.
- Messages
- 678
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Which version did you go with 1 0r 2? I can't figure out what lens I will go with to replace my 17-55 when I go full frame. Each time I research it I end up back on the 24-70. I just don't know if I will like the none i.s. part. The other thing is what version of the 24-70 will i choose. If I go with the 5d mrk2 I will probably go with the first version. I read that the new version with the 5d mrk3 is absolutely superb because it takes advantage of the 24-70 latest updates (what ever that means) lol.
I'm very surprised that Canon did a new version of this lens and did not add the i.s. to it. There seems to be a big gap in choices for walk around lenses for full frame. They almost doubled the price but chose to leave this out again??
You are in for a treat with the 70-200! I have the 70-200 mrk2 and wow!
I went with the mark I, as much as I would have liked the mark II it was just too expensive and will probably remain that way for a long long time.
I was initially worried about the lack of IS as well compared to the 17-55 but if your shutter speeds are getting slow enough to introduce blur then you can just up the ISO on the 5DII because it handles much better at higher ISOs and the noise cleans up nicely. I regularly use ISO 1600 without a problem!
Sunday and Monday are the best nights weather permitting when the Perseid meteor shower is at it's peak with a predicted 100 meteors an hour.
It really depends on the effect that you are after. If you want nice blurry star trails with some streaks of meteors then I highly recommend this excellent guide written by Matt as a place to start.
If you want each star to be visible then the generally accepted formula is 600/focal length on a full frame or 300/focal length on a crop like the 600D but I have yet to put it into practice!