Canon 350D

[abrooks]

I'm about to purchase a Canon 350D with the whole works for a really good price, it comes with a 18-55mm lens.

I'd like to know any extras I'll be needing or any I should just have for the hell of it. In particular the best lenses to get.

 

[BakedBeans]

I'm about to purchase a Canon 350D with the whole works for a really good price, it comes with a 18-55mm lens.

I'd like to know any extras I'll be needing or any I should just have for the hell of it. In particular the best lenses to get.

If you want it to fit in your hand better (its a little on the small size) the grip is always advisable.

as for lenses, i always say that a perfect 'starter' set up is the cheap but good quality (and fast at f1.8) thrifty fifty ( canon 50mm f1.8 mk2) for indoor shooting and a 70-200 f4 for super sharp distance.

just about as good a starter set-up as you can get

350d + grip
18-55
50mm f1.8
70-200 L


of course, it depends how much you have to spend and what you want it for 🙂

 

[edesignuk]

I'm kinda in the same situation....I have the 350D + kit lens and nothing else. I've just found the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II for £69, so that's not going to break the bank. But how about this "70-200 L"? Ideally something that wont break the bank either 😀 😱

 

[BakedBeans]

I'm kinda in the same situation....I have the 350D + kit lens and nothing else. I've just found the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II for £69, so that's not going to break the bank. But how about this "70-200 L"? Ideally something that wont break the bank either 😀 😱

This is the second lens i ever got, its about £399 (which is breaking the bank to some, but in terms of value its getting a powermac dual 2ghz for about 200quid...a bargain). its sharp and contrasty.

ive got a sample shot from it.

70-200 f4 L + 20D

 

[Abstract]

****, did you take that photo ?😱

 

[efoto]

****, did you take that photo ?😱

I'm pretty sure not....I've seen that series elsewhere on demo sites and sample galleries. I wouldn't be too surprised if it came from the 70-200 f4 L though, as I have heard/seen great things from it.

If you go to a camera shop and check out the 70-200 lineup (f4, f2.8, f2.8 IS) you can quickly see and feel the differences in size/weight, and someone can inform you of the performance aspects. If you are mainly planning on using the 70-200 outdoor, the f4 should be fine in most moderately lit situations. The f2.8 model produces a nicer bokeh but that is due to the added stops, as both have an octagonal aperture if I remember correctly so the 'quality' of the bokeh is the same, just more out of the f2.8 model. The 2.8 is brighter as well, but depending on your application that may not justify the added cost.

 

[OutThere]

I'm kinda in the same situation....I have the 350D + kit lens and nothing else. I've just found the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II for £69, so that's not going to break the bank. But how about this "70-200 L"? Ideally something that wont break the bank either 😀 😱

L glass will break the bank...but it's good stuff...😀

 

[edesignuk]

Well I've ordered that Canon 50mm thing, and it's shipped today! Also FINALLY bought a case for the 350D....it's just been sitting on my desk up to now 😱

Think the bank breaking L glass can wait a while...😱

 

[BakedBeans]

Shti, did you take that photo ?😱

Yeah just a snap i taken at a hawk place a while back.

Its a good lens, the 1.2 stop difference between the f4 and the f2.8 just isnt worth it, a boost from iso 100 yo iso 200 gives about the same.... you would never know the difference between the two lenses by the bokeh, never in a million years.

 

[BakedBeans]

I'm pretty sure not....I've seen that series elsewhere on demo sites and sample galleries.

any chance of telling me where? I highly doubt that you've seen it on a demo site or sample gallery (unless i posted it there of course 😉 ), if you have they are infringing my copyright.

If you go to a camera shop and check out the 70-200 lineup (f4, f2.8, f2.8 IS) you can quickly see and feel the differences in size/weight, and someone can inform you of the performance aspects

yeah, you should check them out, the 2.8 and 2.8 Is are alot heavier and alot bulkier than the f2.8. the IS is a great lens but its thousands more expensive. The f4 is actually a little sharper than the other two - again, i doubt you could tell the difference.

The f2.8 model produces a nicer bokeh

no it doesnt. the shape and smoothness is exactly the same afaik. the background will be very slight more OOF though.

 

[efoto]

any chance of telling me where? I highly doubt that you've seen it on a demo site or sample gallery (unless i posted it there of course 😉 ), if you have they are infringing my copyright.

Must be my mistake. I recall seeing images exactly like that (a series of them) for an eagle observatory out west here in the States....but I guess two different eagles can look similar.

yeah, you should check them out, the 2.8 and 2.8 Is are alot heavier and alot bulkier than the f2.8. the IS is a great lens but its thousands more expensive. The f4 is actually a little sharper than the other two - again, i doubt you could tell the difference.

The 2.8 isn't that much heavier than the 4 in my opinion, but the 2.8 IS adds in on without hold for sure. The OD on the 2.8 is larger than the 4 though, if that matters. I really have only seen sharper images from the f4 at f5.6 or higher, whereas the 2.8 (IS) can give sharp images at f4, so you do gain in aperture/sharpness by a nudge, if that matters to you.

no it doesnt. the shape and smoothness is exactly the same afaik. the background will be very slight more OOF though.

"Another way to get a more diffusely blurred background is to use a lens with a long focal length such as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens used for the above Monster Buck picture. It will be much more difficult to blur a background with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Lens. All focal lengths yield the same depth of field when used at the same aperture setting and subject framing. But, the image compression a telephoto focal length provides magnifies the already blurred background. The result is a background that appears more diffusely blurred." taken from here halfway down, under the buck picture.

Perhaps you don't think a more diffused blur is useful, but many others do, and consider that to be more admirable bokeh. They share focal lengths so for that argument they are tied, but I don't see how you can say that f4 produces the same bokeh as f2.8. I said they do share the same octagonal bladed aperture, so the quality is the same, but based on the DOF the 2.8 can produce a superior bokeh, perhaps more than you want, but I would prefer that option if the choice was given to me.

 

[BakedBeans]

Must be my mistake. I recall seeing images exactly like that (a series of them) for an eagle observatory out west here in the States....but I guess two different eagles can look similar.

no worries, i didnt think my eagle show would be anywhere else

I really have only seen sharper images from the f4 at f5.6 or higher, whereas the 2.8 (IS) can give sharp images at f4, so you do gain in aperture/sharpness by a nudge, if that matters to you.

its not my opinion, the f4 is a sharper lens than both the f2.8 versions, check out canons charts. and just for the record the f4 is extremely sharp wide open. the reason you dont always see sharp shots at f4 or f2.8 is because the DOF is so damn shallow that lots of photographers mis the focus and ruin the shot. this shot is at f4, albeit a touch over exposed

"Another way to get a more diffusely blurred background is to use a lens with a long focal length such as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens used for the above Monster Buck picture. It will be much more difficult to blur a background with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Lens. All focal lengths yield the same depth of field when used at the same aperture setting and subject framing. But, the image compression a telephoto focal length provides magnifies the already blurred background. The result is a background that appears more diffusely blurred." taken from here halfway down, under the buck picture.

i was talking about bokeh, which is different from OOF back ground. you will get marginally more OOF from the 2.8 but not noticeable really.

Perhaps you don't think a more diffused blur is useful, but many others do, and consider that to be more admirable bokeh.

They share focal lengths so for that argument they are tied, but I don't see how you can say that f4 produces the same bokeh as f2.8. I said they do share the same octagonal bladed aperture, so the quality is the same, but based on the DOF the 2.8 can produce a superior bokeh, perhaps more than you want, but I would prefer that option if the choice was given to me.

i think you are getting a little mixed up, bokeh isnt the amount of DOF you can get or the more out of focus something is.

the bokeh is the same on both. you seem to be basing your argument on DOF and OOF areas

 

[Abstract]

Must be my mistake. I recall seeing images exactly like that (a series of them) for an eagle observatory out west here in the States....but I guess two different eagles can look similar.

Yeah, I've seen eagle photos from a camera site before, and I thought that photo was taken from there.

 

[efoto]

i was talking about bokeh, which is different from OOF back ground. you will get marginally more OOF from the 2.8 but not noticeable really.

i think you are getting a little mixed up, bokeh isnt the amount of DOF you can get or the more out of focus something is.

the bokeh is the same on both. you seem to be basing your argument on DOF and OOF areas

Bokeh is the quality of the OOF areas, so yes I'm basing my argument on that. Perhaps I mis-worded in the beginning a few posts back, but I was attempting to state that quality of the bokeh is similar (based on an 8-bladed aperture instead of a 5 in many lenses) which allows a high quality (read: nicer looking and more consistent) bokeh.

I've read at a few places that DOF factors into bokeh, but if you're certain it doesn't then fine.

Regardless, I'm bowing out of this 'discussion' as I hate arguing over this s***, takes all the fun out of anything camera for me.

 

[BakedBeans]

Bokeh is the quality of the OOF areas, so yes I'm basing my argument on that. Perhaps I mis-worded in the beginning a few posts back, but I was attempting to state that quality of the bokeh is similar (based on an 8-bladed aperture instead of a 5 in many lenses) which allows a high quality (read: nicer looking and more consistent) bokeh.

I've read at a few places that DOF factors into bokeh, but if you're certain it doesn't then fine.

Regardless, I'm bowing out of this 'discussion' as I hate arguing over this s***, takes all the fun out of anything camera for me.

that isnt an accurate definition of true bokeh, bokeh is actually the rendition of out-of-focus points of light

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm


Im not arguing, im just telling you something. Regardless, you wont be able to tell the difference in the bokeh... both are fantastic.

 

[-hh]

The 2.8 isn't that much heavier than the 4 in my opinion, but the 2.8 IS adds in on without hold for sure.

I just went and looked up the respective weights...

f/4 = 1.56lbs
f/2.8 = 2.8lbs (+1.2lbs)
f/2.8 IS = 3.2lbs without tripod collar (+0.4lbs)

For comparison, The OD on the 2.8 is larger than the 4 though, if that matters.

The f/4 takes a 67mm filter, whereas the f/2.8 takes a 77mm filter.

Setting aside respective costs for polarizer filters and the like, I don't think that the difference between 67mm vs 77mm will make too much of a difference when it comes to camera stowage - - most of the "standard" lens bags I've seen/used over the years are set up for a 58mm diameter lens, so the f/4's 67mm will probably be too big, and you'll then have to move up to the "pro" lens bags whose diameters support a 77mm lens.

BTW ... see my "PS".

However, when shooting, it functionally is that extra +10mm of diameter in the glass that affords the faster glass. YMMV if you need it, but in my personal view (note: I just picked up the f/2.8 IS), it is when you get into lowlight conditions ... sunrise/sunset golden hour ... that you get frustrated at a system that's no faster than f/5.6 after you've put on a 1.4x teleextender and/or polarizer.

...but I would prefer that option if the choice was given to me.

Everything is always going to be a trade-off, but I've found that having limited options is generally what drives one back to B&H to go buy something better...but its not really that its "better", but is a different trade-off. For example, the f/2.8 IS is a really fast system for low light conditions (especially after a high ISO is dialed in with a dSLR), but the trade-off is that it is an expensive and heavy lens. Sometimes, you'll want to stick with the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS because its much lighter (and less expensive too).

-hh

PS: I've been having some challenges getting a camera bag to fit my new system, and as a result, I now have a brand new Lowepro "Off Trail 2 Camera Beltpack" that won't fit lenses larger than 58mm in its outer pockets. If anyone's interested in it, let me know. Otherwise, its going to have to go back to B&H as a used item...I'd keep it for my old 35mm system, as my 75-300 will fit, but my wide angle lens is 77mm, which doesn't. Argh.

 

[Bibulous]

I recently purchased the 70-200L f/4 and agree that it is hard to get sharp hand held shots in mid to low light conditions. I find that I also end up using the ISO 400 setting to offset the added length with my 20D.

But when the focus and camera stability right, this is an outstanding lens. Sure I would love the f/2.8 IS model, but the price is of the f/4 is hard to beat. Plus it fits nicely in my Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home bag.


/bokeh is subjective and I think over rated
//yes, it is

 

[efoto]

I just went and looked up the respective weights...

f/4 = 1.56lbs
f/2.8 = 2.8lbs (+1.2lbs)
f/2.8 IS = 3.2lbs without tripod collar (+0.4lbs)

Wow, I guess I never realized the differences like that. When I went to my local retailer to mess around with these for research I noticed a difference between the 2.8 and 4, but I guess the 2.8 IS seemed heavier (more so) than it proves to be over the non-IS version. Thanks for the numbers, enlightening.

The f/4 takes a 67mm filter, whereas the f/2.8 takes a 77mm filter.

Setting aside respective costs for polarizer filters and the like, I don't think that the difference between 67mm vs 77mm will make too much of a difference when it comes to camera stowage - - most of the "standard" lens bags I've seen/used over the years are set up for a 58mm diameter lens, so the f/4's 67mm will probably be too big, and you'll then have to move up to the "pro" lens bags whose diameters support a 77mm lens.

I do like that all/most of the L glass uses the same 77mm filters though, makes sharing expensive ones a little nicer for those of us you can't afford multiple $120 filters 😛

You may want to take a look at the SlingShot 200 bag from LowePro. I had my local store order a few so I could check them out, but they look interesting and should support a 77mm tipped lens on the body in the 'quick-stow' area. The Nova 5 also holds a lot of large stuff pretty easily. I had a 20D w/ vert grip attached, w/ 24-70 f2.8 on it stowed face-down in the 'quick' slot, and a 70-200 f2.8IS in the side pocket still with room for another 2 or 3 lenses and a flash or two.

As long as I can afford it, I'll always buy the best I can simply for those situations where that single stop or two may make a big difference.

However, when shooting, it functionally is that extra +10mm of diameter in the glass that affords the faster glass. YMMV if you need it, but in my personal view (note: I just picked up the f/2.8 IS), it is when you get into lowlight conditions ... sunrise/sunset golden hour ... that you get frustrated at a system that's no faster than f/5.6 after you've put on a 1.4x teleextender and/or polarizer.

Do all polarizers snag a stop? I know that the 1.4x Teleconverter grabs one, but do the polarizers too? (can you tell I haven't opted cash for one yet?)

Everything is always going to be a trade-off, but I've found that having limited options is generally what drives one back to B&H to go buy something better...but its not really that its "better", but is a different trade-off. For example, the f/2.8 IS is a really fast system for low light conditions (especially after a high ISO is dialed in with a dSLR), but the trade-off is that it is an expensive and heavy lens. Sometimes, you'll want to stick with the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS because its much lighter (and less expensive too).

Of course, that is why there are different offers both in lenses and bodies for unique applications and users. I would love to have large, bulky, fast lenses, but someone else may love compact, light, moderately speedy lenses even though you could argue they are sacrificing things. Perhaps if more and more lenses continue to become offered as DO lenses (diffractive optics) and maintain a certain level of speed then we will see a movement to DO as a new 'standard'.

1200mm DO lens still 30" long 🙄 😛

 

[edesignuk]

The 50mm f1.8 arrived this morning, just took two very quick shots all on fully auto with the stock lens, the the 50mm f1.8, really surprising (to me) how much extra light the new lens sucks in.

 

[efoto]

The 50mm f1.8 arrived this morning, just took two very quick shots all on fully auto with the stock lens, the the 50mm f1.8, really surprising (to me) how much extra light the new lens sucks in.

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/stockV50mm.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

Awesome comparison, thanks for posting that [i]edesignuk[/i]. What aperture settings was your stock lens at when at 50mm?

 

[edesignuk]

Awesome comparison, thanks for posting that edesignuk. What aperture settings was your stock lens at when at 50mm?

er....good question, and I don't know. It was all on fully auto 😱

 

[BakedBeans]

er....good question, and I don't know. It was all on fully auto 😱

photoshop>file>info>advanced>exifproperties>aperture value

😉

 

[efoto]

er....good question, and I don't know. It was all on fully auto 😱

🙂, quite alright. It seems that the BakedBeans posted should work, at least I assume so.

I'm just curious to see what that value is, all other things equal. The results obviously speak for themselves (quite obvious your kit lens isn't shooting f1.8 at 50mm) with the brighter being the 50 f1.8, I'm just curious what value the kit lens is at.

What is the overall aperture range on that lens? You are talking about the 18-55 right??

Assuming it is indeed this lens you are using, it has a f3.5-5.6 range, which would make me assume that it's using something around f5 @ 50mm
Can these cameras (meaning dslr.s) use non-standard aperture jumps? Basically, can you use something like 5.3 vs. 5.6??

 

[benpatient]

yes, they will use non-standard aperture jumps. It's fun to watch what my 50 f1.4 lens will do when I've got the shutter speed locked and the aperture set to "auto."

I get some apertures my old B&W photography professor would be fuming over....

1.6, 2.2, 3.2, 7.1, 20, etc.

 

[efoto]

yes, they will use non-standard aperture jumps. It's fun to watch what my 50 f1.4 lens will do when I've got the shutter speed locked and the aperture set to "auto."

I get some apertures my old B&W photography professor would be fuming over....

1.6, 2.2, 3.2, 7.1, 20, etc.

Is that a function of specific dslr bodies or is it a function of the lens? I'm not sure all bodies can do this do they? 😕