Medium zoom for 400D

D

davelee212

Messages
31
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I'm after a bit of advice...

I impulse bought a Canon 400D the other day (I'm terrible with my money!) and went for the body only option as I had read the kit 18-55 lens isn't up to much.

I was going to go for the Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 lens but I don't need anything that long. Then I almost bought the Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens. Now I'm considering the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 lens as, being faster than the Canon, it will presumably be better for handheld stuff which is probably what I'll end up doing most of.

I'd prefer to go for the Canon lens I think as it's got IS and USM and I understand there are possible QC issues with Sigma lenses. But, would the IS make up for it being slightly slower than the Sigma?

Be gentle, I don't really know what I'm talking about :)

thanks!

Dave
 
I'd recommend the sigma 24-70 2.8, I've gone one and it's as sharp as a sharp thing :)

I don't know anything about the Canon, but you've got a 3 stop saving with the sigma, but... I'm not sure if the IS would make up for that?

How does the Canon compare price wise? You can get the sigma for £220 delivered from Onestop Digital :shrug:

:nikon:
 
Hi Mattyh

A local place is doing the canon lens for £269, which is a little more than the Sigma. Canon reckon the IS on the 17-85 does up to 3 stops compensation so I guess it puts the two on a fairly even keel, which makes my decision even more difficult!

Anyone else?

Dave
 
IS may give you three stops equivalent to counter camera shake, but it doesn't gain you that extra light to use a fast shutter speed, so your shots may be sharp, but may exhibit motion blur - eg moving hands. I'd go for the f2.8 myself.
 
Hello Dave

shame about the 18-55 kit lens, they're a lot better than their reputation (almost threw mine away before using it), they're virtually free and they let you take good photos too while you learn to use the camera and decide which direction you're heading in & what you need to spend lots of money on

You've managed to dive straight into a list of solutions without defining the problem.

I know very little about all these lenses you're mentioning but I'll take a stab at the basic list of questions that people would like answering so they can help you:

start with - what do you think its going to be used for?

what are your non-photo interests? (you'll be photographing them too)

can we assume this is your 1st SLR ?
any previous cameras?
how much experience?

budget?

how well do you hold the camera? - are you solid or a wobbler?

that'll give people here a few pointers


in the meantime I can suggest some light reading:

- try using the forum search or browsing back a few pages, this is pretty much a regular question

- try looking through the lens reviews here: www.photozone.de
but lens reviews don't tell the whole story, neither do other people's opinions (because they'll have different objectives and references), treat them as guides not absolutes.

and finally I suggest you consider getting a "nifty fifty", the 50mm f1.8, it usually costs less than £60 delivered from Kerso on this forum (he runs an ebay lens shop, but contact him through the forum private messenger). The nifty fifty is the sharpest canon lens per pound sterling. It has superb optics and lousy build quality. Its a fixed prime so not the zoom you expected but it'll put light onto the sensor and everybody should have one (many here do). It'll teach you about composition, getting the best quality image from a lens and the effects of aperture on depth of field. Its also great for portraits and with low light. It will zoom of a fashion, you just need to use your feet more! Get the 50mm f1.4 if you like spending money, people say they're nicer built.
 
Great post, Wookie. That should be compulsory reading for all new SLR owners.
 
:agree: with Wookie
The 18-55 kit gets a bad rep everytime but it can produce some pretty good results

BUT if you want to spend a bit of cash
the 55-250mm IS is getting some good reports and was around the £200 mark last time I looked
 
Perhaps I should clarify a little what I'm after....

Yep, this is my first DSLR. Previously I had a Kodak compant then I had a Fuji Finepix 9500. What I'm after is an all round lens with a bit of zoom available that performs okay in low light situations without having to resort to a tripod. I'm going to South Africa later this week and doing a couple of safari trips so the zoom would be handy. However, as we'll be in a land rover, not much space for a tripod. I'm not the steadiest, so something that allows short shutter would be good. Budget wise, somewhere between £200 and £300.

I've been reading through some posts on here, and reading some reviews on the web (found the cameralabs.com ones quite good), just looking at photozone.de now.

I had read about the "nifty fifty" and had thought I might get myself one of these in a month or so. People on here certainly do rate them highly!

Thanks for the advice so far!

Dave
 
davelee212 said:
I'm going to South Africa later this week and doing a couple of safari trips so the zoom would be handy. However, as we'll be in a land rover, not much space for a tripod. I'm not the steadiest, so something that allows short shutter would be good. Budget wise, somewhere between £200 and £300.
Click to expand...
Dave, if I were you I really wouldn't go on a big safari trip with a lens that costs £200-£300. You'll quite probably want a lens that's longer than 300mm and you'll want one that isn't soft at the long end because you'll probably be cropping/enlarging the images too. Unfortunately those characteristics don't come cheap.

I know this will sound like I'm pimping my lens hire business, but I honestly believe it's the truth. The whole reason I got ito this was because I wanted a telephoto for a wildlife trip (polar bears in my case), and I concluded that the sort of expense I could justify for a one-off trip wouldn't give me the quality I would need. I couldn't justify paying £1000 for a Canon 100-400mm, and I couldn't find any decent businesses hiring lenses, and ... well, here we are.
 
the point of an SLR is that you don't use an "all round" lens, you use the one for the job. Super zooms have severe optical limitations, that's why we change lenses on an SLR, we use lenses with short zoom ranges that are optically better.

tight budget, compromises needed

to be honest I reckon that unless you have lots of photographic knowledge, and talent, with a few miracles thrown in for good measure, you'll not be getting good results with the SLR until you've practised a bit. There is a learning curve, and it doesn't happen overnight. You don't really have time to learn to use this camera and the lenses to get the results out of them that you need. With the timescale of "going to South Africa later this week and doing a couple of safari trips" you'd probably be better accepting that a £150-£300 point & shoot camera with IS will get you better results, it'll certainly be a lot easier to carry.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not expecting to go on holiday with the canon, having very little experience of it, and come away with outstanding shots every time. It should give me the opportunity to get some experience with it though. I will be taking the point and shoot compact with me too :)

I understand having different lenses for different subjects is a necessity. However I'm looking at purchasing one lens to get me started while I get the hang of the camera - maybe I should have just gone for the kit after all...

The safari trips we are doing account for only two mornings of our time in SA, so something with a long zoom would be wasted for the majority of time. I'll probably look at investing in a longer zoom later in the year, when the motor racing seaon is in full swing as I can get to a few events.

I rarely used the long end of the 28-300 my last camera had so initially I don't need a big zoom lens. I would also like something that is able to handle low light/indoor situations. It's with these considerations that I thought the the Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lens might fit the bill. From what I've read, and responses to this thread so far, the f2.8 Sigma may be the best bet for what I'm after.

Dave
 
I've got the 55-250 IS and it seems pretty good for the money! I'm no expert but I feel if I rely more on the camera metering the scene and shooting in either aperture or shutter priority I'd get better results - for some reason I shot the rugby fully manually.

This is a photo taken by myself at 220mm:
IMG_1774_800.jpg


Here's a 100% crop (excuse the noise, I was at ISO 800).
IMG_1774_100.jpg
 
Dave - nice to read that you don't have delusions of getting perfection straight out of the box.

Stop worrying about which lens and the maximum aperture, just get something and start shooting.

From what you've described the new canon ef-s 18-55 IS will probably suit as a first walkabout lens. Its not got much range but its useable, goes wide (difference between 18 & 24 is significant), its about £110 so not a big hit, reviews are saying lousy build but really good optics (possibly a bit better than the sigma on resolution?) and its got the IS which is useful for a wobbler and so avoids carrying a tripod or even a monopod everywhere. I've not tried it but I'd be tempted in your position.

For low light the 400d is useable at iso 800 (look at StuD's pics) and will go to ISO 1600 but with a lot of noise (still better than some iso 400 or even 200 film I've used).

IS will help with low light shots as it'll keep it steady at low shutter speeds, great for static subjects.

For fast moving subjects (sports, trains, cars etc) then big aperture becomes very helpful to get very high shutter speeds, but then you'll normally be looking at a longer lens anyway as you can rarely get close.

A lens that does f2.8 costs a lot more, its a bigger heavier lens (sigma= 700g, canon18-55IS=200g), lens diameter bigger for f2.8 so filters will be bigger (sigma 24-70 uses 82mm filters :eek: = £££).

Do you really need f2.8 ? Technically its definately better but are we splitting hairs?

BUT if you really want the sigma then get the sigma. Do it. If the money's there, its what you want and it'll make you happy then great. It'll be good (y)



StuD - nice pics . . . how does the IS affect battery life?
 
A big thanks to Wookie for post #5 (etc). I also took the plunge with a 400D yesterday morning (that Tesco deal) and I'm in minor panic mode about what lenses to buy.

The info and help on this forum really is invaluable!
 
dont get excited, I'm not an expert, its just my opinions based on limited experience.
 
Hi Wookie

I think you're right. The 18-55mm IS lens would fit what I'm after. I take it this is a revised version of the kit lens then as I didn't think it had IS?

Anyway, I guess I've been thinking too much about what to buy rather than just getting out there and getting some experience with the camera. Thanks for the advice and putting up with my indecisiveness! This forum is really helpful for those of us just getting started!

thanks again guys

Dave
 
Hello, I think the 400D uses a 22x15mm sensor, so you need to multiply all your focal lengths by 1.6 to compare to the Fuji's stated 28-300mm length (which itself IIRC is actually 6-66mm).

In other words a 200mm lens will slightly give more range than the fuji at full zoom.

Like you I'm a complete beginner. I picked up a 50mm 1.8 as suggested but also a (fixed length) 135mm f2.8 soft focus (also does non-soft-focus), which was £150 on ebay BNIB. Focusing isn't fast though (no USM).

What you will fine compared to the Fuji though is that you have a lot more control on the depth of field, it's hard to get barely any background blur with 1/1.7" cams. For portaits the DOF on the 135mm at f2.8 is only a few cm's.

Hope that helps!
 
thanks pearce_jj

I did wonder how it's range compared to the 28-300mm on the Fuji lens. Agree with you about the depth of field, it seems much easier to control on the Canon. The Fuji would only ever do it when at almost the extent of it's zoom, on Portrait mode with the subject filling the whole frame (sort of defeating the point of blurring the background I guess!

Dave
 
Wookie said:
StuD - nice pics . . . how does the IS affect battery life?
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure but the only times I've run out of battery power is on this lens. At first I thought it was a fault as the camera just seemed to go dead but would recover if I removed and reinserted the battery (dying again shortly afterwards until I put a fresh one in). I can only assume it does use a bit of extra battery but the IS only switches on when the shutter button is depressed (either half or full) so it's not a huge drain.
 
Hi Dave

That is because of the small sensor size. At full zoom, 300mm equiv, this is actually 66mm @ F4.5 (or there abouts).

So you will get exactly the same shot as a 35mm SLR with a 66mm lens at F4.5, except that you only see an area about 1/20th of a 35mm frame, hence looking more zoomed in.

Whereas with the 400D, you will be looking at a much bigger area, about 2/5th of a 35mm frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top