Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I thought I mentioned that I already knew that, but ok. In return I will correct you in saying that shutter speed affects flash exposure in that the max sync speed is usually around 1/200 (when not using TTL HSS or CCD sensors).

Edit: the above was probably a bit snarky, but I'll leave it in case anyone wants to take issue with it.

Not too snarky. This is the internet; I can take it (goodness knows I give it...) ;)

The use of flash is limited by shutter speed (i.e you can't go higher than the x-sync speed...though HSS gets around this, as you mention), but the flash exposure is independent of shutter speed.
 
fwiw, my other passion is home theatre, I'm active in avsforum.com (mtbdudex there as well).

Every 2 months or so someone asks "whats the difference between $3k pj's, $5k pj's, and $10k/up pj's. Lens optics , lens optics #1 response (+ light engine technology constant technology bubble.)
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=24

Same for my 2.35:1 anamorphic lens, people will ask "if I can build a DIY lens for $500 how will it perform against brand X $3k lens or brand Y $10k cylindrical anamorphic lens"
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117
optics design, coatings, etc all are discussed in detail there.

many guys in avsforum are industry people and back up their statements with graphs/charts/ some even host A/B demo challenge parties.

different hobbies, similar Q's, just sharing.
 
I almost forgot what the thread was about... ;)

BTW: Doylem, your 18-70 is not what I'd call a "cheap kit" lens. It is a faster lens than most cheap zooms, constructed at a much higher level, has non-rotating front element, metal mount, etc. etc. not to mention the excellent optics. The 18-70 is in my mind one of the affordable "classics" and I actually have been thinking of getting one to supplement my heavier 17-55 -- lighter, more reach. It's a bargain, but it's definitely not "cheap" in my estimation.

To the OP, and his question: I'd say that generally cheap lenses are constructed cheaply out of light plastics, have a fair amount of play in their moving parts, and often even a plastic lens mount. Most of them are variable aperture zooms, and usually don't perform corner to corner very well wide open. Often they are thrown in with a entry level body as a "kit" lens. Optically, some of them are actually quite good (Nikkor 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 comes to mind) but you have to consider using this lens wide open at 55mm only gives you f/5.6. Not good even for cloudy days, really. Most folks will find their image quality to be quite sufficient, especially if viewed on a computer or printed as 4x6 prints.

Expensive lenses usually are the primary brand (Nikon, Canon, etc) or specialty third-party lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc.) fast primes and zooms (f/2.8 minimun usually,) although some excellent "moderate priced" lenses are only a constant f/4, but build quality is usually similar to the f/2.8 lenses, which makes them good alternatives for photographers who want quality, but either are on a budget or want more portability. You'll find lots of metal construction, often moisture sealing, smooth action and tight tolerances in manufacturing. These are usually targeted at skilled photo enthusiasts and pros, due to cost and the benefits of the big apertures they're capable of. Nice, tight subject isolation, pleasing background blur, fast autofocus, durability, very good performance wide open.. all hallmarks as a rule of expensive lenses. Often better color rendition, contrast, sharpness, bokeh... the things that make you go "Wow!" when you see that certain shot, whether it's a sports action shot or portrait, and wonder why you can't get that kind of image with your "cheap" lens... Those are just some things that come to mind... There are some excellent cheap lenses, but then again, cheap is relative. ;)

Now... back to the flash photography discussion... ;)
 
Regarding the quality and expense of Canon kit lenses, the 18-55 came with my used XSi even though I didn't want it. They have no resale value or trade-in, either.

Dale
 
The 18-55mm IS goes for about $90 used. I sold mine when i bought an XSi for that much. Considering I got an XSi w/ 18-55IS and 55-250IS for $720 new, I got a smoking deal. Sold the 55-250 for $200 and the 18-55 for $90. So basically got an XSi body for $430 (this was last summer)..

I won't buy stuff if I can't get what I paid for it. IF you look and wait long enough, you will find such deals. Picked up a Sigma 10-20 for $250, sold it for $350. Picked up a Cann 50mm 1,8 MK1 for $100, sold it for $150. Just bought an OM Ziko 24mm f/2.0 for $200, they sell on KEH for $650... off topic i know..
 
The 18-55mm IS goes for about $90 used. I sold mine when i bought an XSi for that much. Considering I got an XSi w/ 18-55IS and 55-250IS for $720 new, I got a smoking deal. Sold the 55-250 for $200 and the 18-55 for $90. So basically got an XSi body for $430 (this was last summer)..

I won't buy stuff if I can't get what I paid for it. IF you look and wait long enough, you will find such deals. Picked up a Sigma 10-20 for $250, sold it for $350. Picked up a Cann 50mm 1,8 MK1 for $100, sold it for $150. Just bought an OM Ziko 24mm f/2.0 for $200, they sell on KEH for $650... off topic i know..

HBOC, thx for sharing, I also got the kit 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS with my T1i body Nov-2009.
Since then I upgraded the low end with the 15-85 (I'm liking that lens), and was looking at either the new $1.5k/2.3 lbs 70-300 L OR the recent new $2.2k/3.3lbs 70-200 mkII L fixed aperture.
But, I never considered selling the kit lens, heck if I can get $275-ish for both (with good filters I don't use) as a package deal I'd consider that win-win for both parties. For some reason those were on my shelf as "back-up" lens...well money sitting un-used is more like it.
 
The 18-55mm IS goes for about $90 used. I sold mine when i bought an XSi for that much. Considering I got an XSi w/ 18-55IS and 55-250IS for $720 new, I got a smoking deal. Sold the 55-250 for $200 and the 18-55 for $90. So basically got an XSi body for $430 (this was last summer)..

I won't buy stuff if I can't get what I paid for it. IF you look and wait long enough, you will find such deals. Picked up a Sigma 10-20 for $250, sold it for $350. Picked up a Cann 50mm 1,8 MK1 for $100, sold it for $150. Just bought an OM Ziko 24mm f/2.0 for $200, they sell on KEH for $650... off topic i know..

Where did you find the sigma for $250. That's a great deal to me...sells for around $475-$500 new now I think.
 
I see them sell for $350-$400 used. Some dude put a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and a Sigma 30mm 1,4 on CL for $400 for both or $250 each. I emailed him literally 8 minutes after he posted it, and he said the 30mm was spoken for. Atleast I got the 10-20.

You just got to look, and most of the time it is being lucky and at the right place at the right time type of deal. I bought a B+W 10 stop 77mm ND110 filter for $70 a few months back. I sold it today for $80 (had a few small nicks on it - not from me).

I am quite happy with the latest purchase..my OM Zuiko 24mm f/2.0 for $198 shipped. It has some dust in the optics (going to get it serviced at some point) and a few blemishes on the hood. Zuiko

I am keeping out an eye for a 21mm 3,5 and a 50mm 1,2.
 
HBOC, thx for sharing, I also got the kit 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS with my T1i body Nov-2009.
Since then I upgraded the low end with the 15-85 (I'm liking that lens), and was looking at either the new $1.5k/2.3 lbs 70-300 L OR the recent new $2.2k/3.3lbs 70-200 mkII L fixed aperture.
But, I never considered selling the kit lens, heck if I can get $275-ish for both (with good filters I don't use) as a package deal I'd consider that win-win for both parties. For some reason those were on my shelf as "back-up" lens...well money sitting un-used is more like it.

I would get the 70-300 DO instead. You save like $500 and get the same optics, minus the weather sealing, but that is moot if your body isn't sealed as the mount will be the weak point.

List your lenses on the local CL. I bet if you put the 18-55IS for like $80-90 and the 55-250 for $190, you will sell them quickly. They both are quality glass for a kit!
 
I would get the 70-300 DO instead. You save like $500 and get the same optics, minus the weather sealing, but that is moot if your body isn't sealed as the mount will be the weak point.

I don't think those two lenses share the same optics.
- the L one has 19 elements in 14 groups as opposed to 18 elements in 12 groups for the old 70-300 DO one,
- L has 8 rounded aperture blades and DO has 6,
- maximum aperture on the L lens is f/4, on the DO is f/4.5,
- closes focus distance is 1.2m on the L lens and 1.4m on the DO one,
- even the filter sizes are different, 67mm on the L and 58mm on the DO
 
Regarding Canon's new 70-300 mm L lens, can anyone explain the rationale behind it? It seems very expensive, much more expensive than the 70-200 mm f/4 which has excellent optics. Wouldn't it be better and cheaper to get the 70-200 mm f/4 and an extender than the 70-300?
 
Regarding Canon's new 70-300 mm L lens, can anyone explain the rationale behind it? It seems very expensive, much more expensive than the 70-200 mm f/4 which has excellent optics. Wouldn't it be better and cheaper to get the 70-200 mm f/4 and an extender than the 70-300?

It seems to be aimed at people making the step up to DSLRs or up from entry level DSLRs. They tend to prefer fewer parts so one lens vs one lens + converter is a win for them. Other than that I agree with you 100%.
 
Regarding Canon's new 70-300 mm L lens, can anyone explain the rationale behind it? It seems very expensive, much more expensive than the 70-200 mm f/4 which has excellent optics. Wouldn't it be better and cheaper to get the 70-200 mm f/4 and an extender than the 70-300?

Its an answer to a question that very few have asked.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.