XSI or 40D?

[OreoCookie]

I'm a little puzzled as to where you got the 24-105 from? I didn't plan to get that one.

I meant the 28-135, my recommendation against that lens stands, of course.

I'm pretty sure I'll be going for the 100mm though, I just need a good general lens then if people don't recommend the one that comes in the kit.

The 100 mm lens is a macro lens, corresponding to 160 mm on film -- not a very good general purpose lens. The alternatives (50 or 80 mm) are held in very high esteem, have a better aperture and are smaller.

 

[thinkband]

I'm a little puzzled as to where you got the 24-105 from? I didn't plan to get that one.

I'm pretty sure I'll be going for the 100mm though, I just need a good general lens then if people don't recommend the one that comes in the kit.

I think he meant to say "EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM" is not a good walkaround lens. The 24-105L is a good lens, but you pay for it at just over
1k.

I am very much in your situation. I had in mind that I was getting a 40d for a while (I like the bigger feel) but compromised with a used 30d (seller never touched it - $700).

I used what I would have spent on the 40d on a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens. This runs for about $430 and it is highly regarded as being extremely sharp, relatively well built, etc. I have not received it yet, but from what I read, its the best of all worlds for a good walkaround: good range, sharp and inexpensive. It also performs very well in low light situations because its at constant f2.8.

Many have told me not to get the cheapo canon ranges (such as the 28-105, 28-135). You get what you pay for . People have also told me that a good prime can be a good start to a camera. Canon 50mm 1.8 runs at $80 and is very sharp.

The xsi is not all that special and not that big of an upgrade from the xti. Xti runs at $500 new now, so it might be worth another look, and you have that much more money on a good lens.

 

[NeXTCube]

Many have told me not to get the cheapo canon ranges (such as the 28-105, 28-135). You get what you pay for . People have also told me that a good prime can be a good start to a camera. Canon 50mm 1.8 runs at $80 and is very sharp.

Makes a great portrait lens on the digital and a great normal lens on the 35mm. (Mine is a more recent one with a plastic lens mount; this isn't a bad thing necessarily. My Rebel 2000 also has a plastic lens mount, and with this lens on it, it's lighter than many point&shoot cameras!)

 

[seany916]

I've gotta go with OreoCookie on this one and say you're better off putting the extra dough into lenses rather than the body. Get the XSi (body only)with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens. It will rock your world.

agree with everyone above in getting a decent body and GREAT lenses

17-55 & 70-200 in 2.8 will be a well rounded (albeit expensive) set of lenses that will suit almost any occasion. Skip the 70-200 if you don't shoot anything at a distance. You can get a few primes or a fisheye (I really don't like them myself) later if you'd like.

Buy quality lenses! Or A quality lens.

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

It does seem that buying quality lenses makes sense, and that is what I do plan to do. I do like the look of that EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens but I think it's a lens I would buy a few months down the line.

I'm going to buy the 100mm lens and probably stick with the kit lens too for the first few months. Get myself going and then start looking at other lenses. I do like the 50mm lens though, which is cheap.

 

[seany916]

What the heck are you planning on doing with a 100mm lens?


My friend LOVES primes (I don't).

He shoots Canon (I don't).

He seems to be swapping out lenses 7x a shoot (I do it MAYBE 3x).

I zooms with his feet (I zoom with my lens).

He would have a point to this ramble (I don't).


(I apologize for hijacking your thread... rambling over)

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

What the heck are you planning on doing with a 100mm lens?

I'm a huge fan of Macro photography, and after searching online it seems like a wonderful lens. I've seen nothing but glowing reviews for it. It also appears to be good for some close up portrait photos too, so I'll try it with that, see how it goes.

 

[M@lew]

Yup, the 100mm is a macro. I think seany916 assumed it was just a normal telephoto.

 

[dllavaneras]

OK, so it looks like I'm leaning towards the XSI then. But would you guys really recommend not getting it with the lens kit? It's not that much more and it might be a decent starter lens. I think I'd like to get the 100mm macro lens, whatever it was called as it sounded like a great one as well as maybe a great landscape lens. Any suggestions in macro and landscape?

I bought the XTi in december. The kit lens is ok (I have the non IS version). It's good for starters, but only for that. If you want to get the most out of your camera (whichever you choose), you'll need another lens. One big plus of the kit lens is that it's cheap and once you take a couple hundred shots with it you'll start to see which focal lengths you use the most and you can plan a lens purchase based on that.

As for the 100mm f2.8 macro, it's awesome! Incredibly sharp, and since I got it I've used the kit lens only about 3 times. Keep in mind that 95% of my pics are macros, though.

I'm a huge fan of Macro photography, and after searching online it seems like a wonderful lens. I've seen nothing but glowing reviews for it. It also appears to be good for some close up portrait photos too, so I'll try it with that, see how it goes.

It's great for portraits, but you have to be pretty far away if you want to get anything besides the head in the pic.

Also, for macrophotography, the depth of field is very narrow, so you have to stop down a lot to get some DOF. Also, since it's a 100mm lens, you need a high shutter speed (at least 1/100, unless you have a tripod) to get a sharp pic. That means you either have to have excellent lighting or use a high ISO. I do mostly field work, so I normally don't have good lighting and I don't like to use a high ISO, so I bought myself a canon ring flash (MR-14EX) and I couldn't be happier! you can check out my gallery if you'd like to see some pic with the 100mm macro and ring flash.

If you have any other questions regarding the 100mm macro, don't hesitate to ask

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

I bought the XTi in december. The kit lens is ok (I have the non IS version). It's good for starters, but only for that. If you want to get the most out of your camera (whichever you choose), you'll need another lens. One big plus of the kit lens is that it's cheap and once you take a couple hundred shots with it you'll start to see which focal lengths you use the most and you can plan a lens purchase based on that.

As for the 100mm f2.8 macro, it's awesome! Incredibly sharp, and since I got it I've used the kit lens only about 3 times. Keep in mind that 95% of my pics are macros, though.




It's great for portraits, but you have to be pretty far away if you want to get anything besides the head in the pic.

Also, for macrophotography, the depth of field is very narrow, so you have to stop down a lot to get some DOF. Also, since it's a 100mm lens, you need a high shutter speed (at least 1/100, unless you have a tripod) to get a sharp pic. That means you either have to have excellent lighting or use a high ISO. I do mostly field work, so I normally don't have good lighting and I don't like to use a high ISO, so I bought myself a canon ring flash (MR-14EX) and I couldn't be happier! you can check out my gallery if you'd like to see some pic with the 100mm macro and ring flash.

If you have any other questions regarding the 100mm macro, don't hesitate to ask

Your macro shots are what I can only hope to achieve with any camera, let alone the 100mm lens. What kind of setting up do you do to take those shots? How close are you and are you using a tripod usually?

 

[dllavaneras]

Your macro shots are what I can only hope to achieve with any camera, let alone the 100mm lens. What kind of setting up do you do to take those shots? How close are you and are you using a tripod usually?

Wow, thanks! I'm glad you like my pics. To answer your questions:

My setup is simple: Canon XTi, Canon 100mm macro, Ring Lite MR-14 EX. No tripod, as I mostly do field work and it's too much of a hassle to set up. Besides, I don't have the tripod ring, so I don't want to risk damaging the tripod thread by placing such a heavy setup on a tripod. Here's a pic to give you an idea of the size of the lens and ring flash when attached to an XTi.

As for settings, I normally use Manual mode, 1/200, f8-11, ISO 100 and center focus point (some in manual focus). Depending on the framing I may me anywhere from a meter away to 15 cm from the bug, measured from the front of the lens

The key is to practice a lot, and have patience. On good days (3-400 pics) I usually end up with 20 that I really like, so don't fret!

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

Wow, thanks! I'm glad you like my pics. To answer your questions:

My setup is simple: Canon XTi, Canon 100mm macro, Ring Lite MR-14 EX. No tripod, as I mostly do field work and it's too much of a hassle to set up. Besides, I don't have the tripod ring, so I don't want to risk damaging the tripod thread by placing such a heavy setup on a tripod. Here's a pic to give you an idea of the size of the lens and ring flash when attached to an XTi.

As for settings, I normally use Manual mode, 1/200, f8-11, ISO 100 and center focus point (some in manual focus). Depending on the framing I may me anywhere from a meter away to 15 cm from the bug, measured from the front of the lens

The key is to practice a lot, and have patience. On good days (3-400 pics) I usually end up with 20 that I really like, so don't fret!

Thanks for the info, very helpful. It's nice to see what the 100mm lens looks like on the XTI, since it's very similar to the XSI.

Nice to know what sort of setup people use and what settings people prefer. It gives me an opportunity to try out something similar and see if it works for me too.

 

[dllavaneras]

Thanks for the info, very helpful. It's nice to see what the 100mm lens looks like on the XTI, since it's very similar to the XSI.

Sure Keep in mind that this thing is quite heavy, I've tried handheld shots and I can't keep it in a certain position for long. If I had the grip things could be different, but this is definitely one combo you need both hands for. If you need anything else, just ask

 

[OreoCookie]

Sure Keep in mind that this thing is quite heavy, I've tried handheld shots and I can't keep it in a certain position for long. If I had the grip things could be different, but this is definitely one combo you need both hands for. If you need anything else, just ask

Plus, your dof is razor-thin. I've had to learn to use my bazooka zoom (2.8/80-200), because at reasonable distances, the dof can be 1-2 cm at f/2.8! I even thought my lens was having focussing issues when I was just having `subject issues' (back then, I was mostly using AF-S instead of AF-C)!

@Optimus
What will you use the macro lens for? Perhaps Canon's 60 mm macro might be of interest to you -- also, because this would double as a nice portrait lens
Plus, you should have mentioned that you are into macro photography earlier

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

Plus, your dof is razor-thin. I've had to learn to use my bazooka zoom (2.8/80-200), because at reasonable distances, the dof can be 1-2 cm at f/2.8! I even thought my lens was having focussing issues when I was just having `subject issues' (back then, I was mostly using AF-S instead of AF-C)!

@Optimus
What will you use the macro lens for? Perhaps Canon's 60 mm macro might be of interest to you -- also, because this would double as a nice portrait lens
Plus, you should have mentioned that you are into macro photography earlier

I thought I had mentioned my interest in Macro photography, but I guess I forgot to. Oh well

I looked at the 60mm too, but the 100mm just seemed like a nicer lens. Both are good and I wouldn't make a bad decision with one over the other.

My only problem now is that I'm sort of on the fence again with the body. I really do like the 40D more and more as I look into it. I just have to choose which kit lens I would go with as there are two.

 

[glennyboiwpg]

I'm in the same boat ad the thread starter. But I have a. Battery that will fit the 40d and I also have a 4gig ultra ii compact flash card.

If I get the 40d I would have a second battery and would have a memery card that will do me u till the 16gig cards come down in price.

Does having a second battery and card make up the extra price between the xsi and 40d?

 

[ChrisA]

I'm also thinking of this as more of a long term purchase.

A DSLR body is NOT a long term purchase.

But and SLR system. is. Lenses tend to last "forever". The technology is mature and does not change fast. So a lens will still be usable in 20 years. But DSLR bodies age quickly. the body (which ever you buy) will have no value in ten years. You will replace the body periodically but you will over time (decades maybe) maybe build up a collection of lenses.

What I've do is go with the less expensive body and but the money in to lenses. Buy just the low-price "kit" lens and shhjot it for some time then after yu know what you need buy a 50mm f/1.8 or a macro lens or an ultra-wide angle zoom or whatever. shoot 1,000 frames then buy your second lens. You'll be needing a flash and a tripod and a ton of stuff. Don't put all the money into a body, Soon enough it will be time to upgrade/replace the body

 

[ChrisA]

I'm in the same boat ad the thread starter. But I have a. Battery that will fit the 40d and I also have a 4gig ultra ii compact flash card.

If I get the 40d I would have a second battery and would have a memery card that will do me u till the 16gig cards come down in price.

Does having a second battery and card make up the extra price between the xsi and 40d?

I'm shopping for a 4GB memory card. I notice that are $25 at the local store. Batteries cost about double that if they are real Canon batteries. But I really doubt you will need a second battery. Most people don't. Both cameras can easy make 200 exposures on one battery.

Why a 16GB card? I think you are better off using a 4GB card or a few of them. You can get about 100 RAW images per GB or maybe 4X that many JPG.

You can eBay the battery and recover 1/2 it's value

 

[harcosparky]

After years of shooting with a 10D and then a 30D and today I ordered an EOS 5D I will recommend you go with the 40D.

It will serve you better over the long haul. I use mine way too much and I can tell you a Rebel would catch he*l in my hands.

Lens????

Depends on what you want to do.

I've use Tamron, Sigma, and Canon. Today though I am sticking with Canon. I still have a Tamron SP AF180mm f3.5 for Macro work, it is a beautiful lense.

In my camera case I keep the following ....

Canon 28-135 IS f3.5-5.6
Canon 17-40 f/4L
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS

I will be adding a Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens soon.


I used the 28-135 a lot, in all kinds of situations but I have to say getting that 17-40 was the best thing I ever did.

I have been shooting Canon since the early 1970's

Get at least 1 extra battery and nothing smaller than a 4GB CF Card,I now carry 4 batteries, two 4GB, and two 8GB CF cards.

Bottom line - get the 40D and you will have no regrets.

Lenses - don't compromise if you can avoid it. Starting with the 28-135 is a good way to go.

On a 8GB card in the 30D I get 895 RAW Images


EDIT - Might not be a bad idea, if you want to save some money - shop around for a 30D

 

[form]

If you have money to burn, get a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 OR Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and couple it with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L with or without IS OR Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and you'll be able to do many things very well (with regards to focal lengths and aperture).

If macro is your interest, any number of good quality optics from all the major manufacturers are available. You can also buy the 50mm f/1.8 II and invest in extension tubes to convert it into a macro lens.

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

A DSLR body is NOT a long term purchase.

I know it's not a long term purchase in the sense that I will still upgrade to another body at some point, I'm just thinking about a longer term purchase compared to the other cameras I buy. I've pretty much changed the camera almost every year, that's why I'm still thinking on either the XSI or the 40D. If I get the XSI, will I want something like the 40D the following year? Or if I get the 40D would I be happier for at least a few years.

After years of shooting with a 10D and then a 30D and today I ordered an EOS 5D I will recommend you go with the 40D.

It will serve you better over the long haul. I use mine way too much and I can tell you a Rebel would catch he*l in my hands.

Lens????

Depends on what you want to do.

I've use Tamron, Sigma, and Canon. Today though I am sticking with Canon. I still have a Tamron SP AF180mm f3.5 for Macro work, it is a beautiful lense.

In my camera case I keep the following ....

Canon 28-135 IS f3.5-5.6
Canon 17-40 f/4L
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS

I will be adding a Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens soon.


I used the 28-135 a lot, in all kinds of situations but I have to say getting that 17-40 was the best thing I ever did.

I have been shooting Canon since the early 1970's

Get at least 1 extra battery and nothing smaller than a 4GB CF Card,I now carry 4 batteries, two 4GB, and two 8GB CF cards.

Bottom line - get the 40D and you will have no regrets.

Lenses - don't compromise if you can avoid it. Starting with the 28-135 is a good way to go.

On a 8GB card in the 30D I get 895 RAW Images

I think I'd personally just go with a 4GB card as that would be plenty for me.

As for the lens though, that's where I'm also on the fence. There are two kits for the 40D, one with the 17-85 USM Lens or one with the 28-135 USM Lens. Both are roughly the same price. I'm looking for a lens which is more on the everyday use lens, hence why I'm going to purchase the camera with the kit lens. I'll look into buying other lenses at a later time.

Both of those lenses seem to be decent, so I don't think I'd go wrong either way, I'm just not quite sure which one would be best to start off with.

I'm also thinking maybe of getting the 40D without either of those lenses, which would cut the cost down by $300 CAD. I would then get the 50mm 1.8 to start off with and then later in the year purchase an expensive lens. Any thoughts?

 

[Grimace]

Both of those lenses seem to be decent, so I don't think I'd go wrong either way, I'm just not quite sure which one would be best to start off with.

I'm also thinking maybe of getting the 40D without either of those lenses, which would cut the cost down by $300 CAD. I would then get the 50mm 1.8 to start off with and then later in the year purchase an expensive lens. Any thoughts?

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great value and sharp lens. Good pick.

In terms of the other lenses, they are both pretty good. The difference is wide vs. long. You have to pick based on what you shoot more of. If you are into landscapes and still life, the 17-85 is your pick. Mid range to closeups (generally speaking) and the 28-135mm is ideal.

If you just get the 40D body + the 50mm f/1.8 you will be able to play around with an awesome lens, learn the 40D body, and then know if your eye wants to take wide or close shots.

 

[harcosparky]

I know it's not a long term purchase in the sense that I will still upgrade to another body at some point, I'm just thinking about a longer term purchase compared to the other cameras I buy. I've pretty much changed the camera almost every year, that's why I'm still thinking on either the XSI or the 40D. If I get the XSI, will I want something like the 40D the following year? Or if I get the 40D would I be happier for at least a few years.



I think I'd personally just go with a 4GB card as that would be plenty for me.

As for the lens though, that's where I'm also on the fence. There are two kits for the 40D, one with the 17-85 USM Lens or one with the 28-135 USM Lens. Both are roughly the same price. I'm looking for a lens which is more on the everyday use lens, hence why I'm going to purchase the camera with the kit lens. I'll look into buying other lenses at a later time.

Both of those lenses seem to be decent, so I don't think I'd go wrong either way, I'm just not quite sure which one would be best to start off with.

I'm also thinking maybe of getting the 40D without either of those lenses, which would cut the cost down by $300 CAD. I would then get the 50mm 1.8 to start off with and then later in the year purchase an expensive lens. Any thoughts?

Here is a thought ....

Go with the 17-85 assuming it is the IS version. Later you can add the 70-300 IS zoom and this will cover you from 17-300 with 2 lenses.

Also do not forget an additional flash unit. The 580EX is the current high end though I think you might find a good deal on a 550EX.

EDIT - the more I think of it, the better I like going for the 17-85 I'll tell you why. When I bought my 10D I got the 28-135, when I upgraded to the 30D I asked to see the 17-40 L Series lense. WOW - what a difference the 17 size made on the low end as compared to the 28. If you can get to a camera shop, ask them to show you the body with both lenses and see for yourself. We just shot over 800 images at a motorcycle show and except for the motorcycles we used the 17-40 exclusively - allowed us to get closer to the bikes, avoiding the people moving about. Now for the girls modeling their outfits we switched between various lenses!

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

Here is a thought ....

Go with the 17-85 assuming it is the IS version. Later you can add the 70-300 IS zoom and this will cover you from 17-300 with 2 lenses.

Also do not forget an additional flash unit. The 580EX is the current high end though I think you might find a good deal on a 550EX.

EDIT - the more I think of it, the better I like going for the 17-85 I'll tell you why. When I bought my 10D I got the 28-135, when I upgraded to the 30D I asked to see the 17-40 L Series lense. WOW - what a difference the 17 size made on the low end as compared to the 28. If you can get to a camera shop, ask them to show you the body with both lenses and see for yourself. We just shot over 800 images at a motorcycle show and except for the motorcycles we used the 17-40 exclusively - allowed us to get closer to the bikes, avoiding the people moving about. Now for the girls modeling their outfits we switched between various lenses!

It is the iS version for the 17-85. All of the reviews I've read so far on the 17-85 is that it's not really that great, nor is the 28-135. They both seem adequate though. The 17-85 seems to have some huge distortion at 17mm too.

I plan to shoot just anything in general really. Some close stuff and probably a fair bit of HDR photos with sunsets and architecture.

 

[harcosparky]

It is the iS version for the 17-85. All of the reviews I've read so far on the 17-85 is that it's not really that great, nor is the 28-135. They both seem adequate though. The 17-85 seems to have some huge distortion at 17mm too.

I plan to shoot just anything in general really. Some close stuff and probably a fair bit of HDR photos with sunsets and architecture.

Well I can't speak for the 17-85 as I do not own one, the 28-135 did the job for me until I bought that 17-40 L Series lens. Though it is NOT an IS lens, it is an "L" Series lens. Canons' "L" Series is their premiere line of lenses.

I will say that I am biased and have become spoiled by the "L" series. Currently the 17-40 is the only "L" series I have on hand. I had the 70-200 f4.0 L but sold it recently to replace it with the 70-200 f4/L IS lens.

Given the reviews you have read, I retract my recommendation for the 17-85. I was not aware of distortion on the low end.

Maybe go with the 17-40 "L" Series lens then add the 70-300 IS lens. This would leave a hole between 40-70mm but I think you could find something to fill the gap.

You also mentioned a Canon 100mm Macro lens. I can recommend a Tamron lens for that task as I have their 180mm Macro. You'll get good performance and save $$$.

Below is a pic of my current 'package'. I honestly find myself using the 28-135 less and less with each passing day.