Your lenses seem impressive. That's what I'd like to do in time, have a nice collection. I do plan to spend a fair bit of cash on some good lenses in the future though since they are compatible with future cameras.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
XSI or 40D?
- Thread starter Optimus Rhyme
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your lenses seem impressive. That's what I'd like to do in time, have a nice collection. I do plan to spend a fair bit of cash on some good lenses in the future though since they are compatible with future cameras.
Well yeah, duh. The 17-85 or the 28-135 isnt a great lens compared to an L lens. The 17-85 is going to be better in that you get the wide end vs the 28-135 that has the longer reach. If you have the money dont consider either one. If your a hobbiest either one will take good photos if your a good photographer.
It's pretty obvious that they wont comparable to an L series lens as they are far more expensive, the comparison isn't worth mentioning.
I will purchase an L series lens in the future, but that's not an issue at this time.
Getting your feet wet with the 17-85 and 28-135 isn't a bad idea.
"L" series lenses are the ultimate, but to be honest I would not and did not spend money on " L " lenses until I identified where my photographic priorities were.
A good friend of mine does portrait and macro work with one lens. A Canon 100mm Macro Lens.
Once you figure out which lens spends the most time on your camera, then you will know which "L" lens to shoot for.
You notice in the pic I have the 17-40 "L" and the 70-300 USM as well as the 28-135. Well the 17-40 and 70-300 spend more time on my camera than does the 28-135. This is why I opted for the 70-200 2.8 L IS lens. Way too much money, but worth it I believe.
I would love a little more reach but $$$$$ is the prohibitive factor.
I will likely use a Canon Tele-extender on the 70-200 .... it's an f/2.8 so even with a doubler it wont be hateful. I tend to not like using a doubler, but Canon makes one designed for use with that lens so who knows.
Ultimately I will have the Canon EOS 5D, 3 Canon "L" lenses and the Tamron 180 Macro Lens. I love that Tamron for doing coins and jewelry. I have caught flaws on stones as a result of that lens that I missed with an eye loupe!
Have fun with your choices ..... over time you will make changes in gear as your style develops.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm a very random photographer, nothing specific really so until I'm truly sure on which area I photograph more, theres no point in spending $1000+ on a lens. With an average lens system, I can then move on to a better one in the not to distant future.
Even though you're a `random' photographer, there are certain basics you can cover. A good standard zoom lens, for instance, will do you much more good, than an expensive body (which is worthless without quality lenses to go with).
My experience was pretty similar to yours. I've been shooting for about 2 years now (although not on a professional level and I still have a hell of a lot to learn). I will reflect everything that has been said here already: invest in good glass and it will help you a lot more in the long-run.
I started out with the XT (350D) and the 18-55 kit lens. After shooting for about a month, I pretty much saw that my photos geared into wildlife photography, so got a Sigma 70-300 because it was cheap. Essentially the only way you could get decent quality photos was by stopping down to f/8, which killed any DOF and even then it wasn't brilliant.
That was my first (and pretty much last) mistake in kit purchasing. It never really performed in the way I wanted, my photos were quite fuzzy and after about 9 months of usage, I decided enough was enough. After saving for a long time, I finally managed to get a 100-400L and haven't looked back since. Since then, I've also collected the 24-105L, 200L and 10-22, all of which are optically excellent. Only after I'd got these did I upgrade to the 40D.
My suggestion would be to get the XSi, start shooting with the 18-55 and go from there. Since you've said you enjoy macro, get the 100mm f/2.8: it has L-quality optics and is a great lens for portraiture. Also has very nice bokeh.
If you shoot for a while and find yourself needing extra reach, invest in a decent telephoto like the 70-200f/4L (one of the best lenses Canon make for the price). Likewise, if you're finding yourself wanting better quality at the lower end, go for a 17-55 or a 24-105.
I started out with the XT (350D) and the 18-55 kit lens. After shooting for about a month, I pretty much saw that my photos geared into wildlife photography, so got a Sigma 70-300 because it was cheap. Essentially the only way you could get decent quality photos was by stopping down to f/8, which killed any DOF and even then it wasn't brilliant.
That was my first (and pretty much last) mistake in kit purchasing. It never really performed in the way I wanted, my photos were quite fuzzy and after about 9 months of usage, I decided enough was enough. After saving for a long time, I finally managed to get a 100-400L and haven't looked back since. Since then, I've also collected the 24-105L, 200L and 10-22, all of which are optically excellent. Only after I'd got these did I upgrade to the 40D.
My suggestion would be to get the XSi, start shooting with the 18-55 and go from there. Since you've said you enjoy macro, get the 100mm f/2.8: it has L-quality optics and is a great lens for portraiture. Also has very nice bokeh.
If you shoot for a while and find yourself needing extra reach, invest in a decent telephoto like the 70-200f/4L (one of the best lenses Canon make for the price). Likewise, if you're finding yourself wanting better quality at the lower end, go for a 17-55 or a 24-105.
Here is my equipment come and go
I originally have the XT(350D) with 18-55mm, a 55-200mm F4-5.6, 85mm f1.8 and 430EX
then last year, I received a 17-40L as my B-day gift, then I replaced my XT and kit lens wit 40D(this is crazy) After that, I decided to sell my 55-200 and replaced it with a 70-200 F4L IS. In additional, I bought a 580EX II in order to try out the remote flash mode with the 430EX. But I end up sold the 430EX as I barely used that
I am thinking about this two lesns 100 F2.8 Macro and 50mm F1.4 in the near future!
In most case, body come and go, investment on lens will worth a long time!
Of course, English is not my first Language! However, I don't use a translation to get the job done. I just typed the message while I am thinking and of course, I didn't go back to proof read!
I originally have the XT(350D) with 18-55mm, a 55-200mm F4-5.6, 85mm f1.8 and 430EX
then last year, I received a 17-40L as my B-day gift, then I replaced my XT and kit lens wit 40D(this is crazy) After that, I decided to sell my 55-200 and replaced it with a 70-200 F4L IS. In additional, I bought a 580EX II in order to try out the remote flash mode with the 430EX. But I end up sold the 430EX as I barely used that
I am thinking about this two lesns 100 F2.8 Macro and 50mm F1.4 in the near future!
In most case, body come and go, investment on lens will worth a long time!
Of course, English is not my first Language! However, I don't use a translation to get the job done. I just typed the message while I am thinking and of course, I didn't go back to proof read!
Thanks for your opinions. I'm going to end up going with the 40D with the 28-125mm lens as I can get a very good deal on it. I will post my opinions and results too once I purchase it.
BTW, I'm assuming airmax922 that English isn't your first language? It appears as if you used a translator for what you wrote, if so, I think that's pretty cool that you take the time to do that, thanks!
Might as well give a final heads up on this thread. I ended up getting the 40D with the 17-85mm kit lens as I got a fantastic deal on it yesterday. Wonderful camera, and I can't wait to take loads of photographs to share with you all.
Been there, done that...
I was in this same situation just over a month ago. I eventually settled on a 40D largely due to the feel of it in my hands. I have big hands and the 40D just felt more stable in my hands then the XSi. Not to mention the 40D is heavier and feels a lot less "plastic." (cause it actually is made of less plastic and more metal)
Prior to feeling both cameras side by side I was pretty much sold on the XSi... but it all came down to feel.
I was in this same situation just over a month ago. I eventually settled on a 40D largely due to the feel of it in my hands. I have big hands and the 40D just felt more stable in my hands then the XSi. Not to mention the 40D is heavier and feels a lot less "plastic." (cause it actually is made of less plastic and more metal)
Prior to feeling both cameras side by side I was pretty much sold on the XSi... but it all came down to feel.
Im currently using a 300d and im debating which one I should go for myself.
I like the feel of the 300d and size so the 40D has that advantage over it.
My reasons for upgrading is primarily because I find that I have a lot of shots where the camera fails to recognize the faces in the picture. For example if i take a picture of a person at a podium it would focus on the mike in front of the person speaking rather than the persons face. Usually you can't really tell that its blurred until u go home and look at it on the computer.
I read that the newer SLRS have better facial recoginition software.
Also, I read that the noise level when shooting at higher ISOs have been reduced.
Can anyone confirm this?
I like the feel of the 300d and size so the 40D has that advantage over it.
My reasons for upgrading is primarily because I find that I have a lot of shots where the camera fails to recognize the faces in the picture. For example if i take a picture of a person at a podium it would focus on the mike in front of the person speaking rather than the persons face. Usually you can't really tell that its blurred until u go home and look at it on the computer.
I read that the newer SLRS have better facial recoginition software.
Also, I read that the noise level when shooting at higher ISOs have been reduced.
Can anyone confirm this?
Hey man, I'm looking into getting a 40d or xsi too right now. If you don't mind, where did you get a 40D with the 17-85 mm kit lens. Hopefully its not some neighborhood place and maybe i can grab a deal or something. how do you like the camera? thanks
I should start that I own rebel xti. I tried xsi in a store. It seems xsi is quite an improvement over xti.
1 Faster focus. xti sometimes kills me when it tries to focus and time is ticking. Xsi seems as fast as any Nikon is.
2 Lighter. You can hate this or like it. If you will put heavier zoom lens somehow it will be worse, because lens will weight more than body.
3 Comes in a kit with better lens - with IS.
4 Better screen. Brighter, bigger.
Minuses would be worse button layout- everything is cramped altogether, changed functions vs xti.
Canon 40D is just too large, too heavy and more expensive.
Problem with Canon is lenses and focus. I can see all L fans hate-posts right now! Canon doesn't make good all around zoom lens (especially when you consider price too)*, focus is slower, compared with Nikon or Sony. Nikon be it D40 or anything else autofocus so much faster, and better Sony seems do very well too. OK I have no access to the most expensive Canon bodies, but I tried everything including 40D.
But Canon has good button layout in general. More dedicated buttons even on low grade bodies.
By the way, why everyone so keen to buy wide angle lenses? Seems everyone cares only about landscapes! Just my curiosity.
I am thinking to switch to Nikon.
*Nikon offers (Adorama rounded USA warranty prices):
18mm - 70mm $330
18mm - 135mm $330
18mm - 200mm $680
Canon offers:
17mm - 85mm $400 equals to 27-136mm for rebels
28-135mm $410 ---''--- 45-215mm --"--
Sony offers (B&H & amazon rounded prices(adorama doesn't list)):
16mm-80mm $690
16-105mm $580 Amazon
18-70mm $190
18-200mm $500 Amazon
18-250mm $480
Now Canon does offer many other lenses, but I am looking for all around lens, because I just want to attach and forget about it. So your mileage probably will be different than mine.
The only choice for me is Canon's 28-135mm. As I tend to shoot more telephoto than wide angle it is not that bad, but it is quite heavy for what it does.
1 Faster focus. xti sometimes kills me when it tries to focus and time is ticking. Xsi seems as fast as any Nikon is.
2 Lighter. You can hate this or like it. If you will put heavier zoom lens somehow it will be worse, because lens will weight more than body.
3 Comes in a kit with better lens - with IS.
4 Better screen. Brighter, bigger.
Minuses would be worse button layout- everything is cramped altogether, changed functions vs xti.
Canon 40D is just too large, too heavy and more expensive.
Problem with Canon is lenses and focus. I can see all L fans hate-posts right now! Canon doesn't make good all around zoom lens (especially when you consider price too)*, focus is slower, compared with Nikon or Sony. Nikon be it D40 or anything else autofocus so much faster, and better Sony seems do very well too. OK I have no access to the most expensive Canon bodies, but I tried everything including 40D.
But Canon has good button layout in general. More dedicated buttons even on low grade bodies.
By the way, why everyone so keen to buy wide angle lenses? Seems everyone cares only about landscapes! Just my curiosity.
I am thinking to switch to Nikon.
*Nikon offers (Adorama rounded USA warranty prices):
18mm - 70mm $330
18mm - 135mm $330
18mm - 200mm $680
Canon offers:
17mm - 85mm $400 equals to 27-136mm for rebels
28-135mm $410 ---''--- 45-215mm --"--
Sony offers (B&H & amazon rounded prices(adorama doesn't list)):
16mm-80mm $690
16-105mm $580 Amazon
18-70mm $190
18-200mm $500 Amazon
18-250mm $480
Now Canon does offer many other lenses, but I am looking for all around lens, because I just want to attach and forget about it. So your mileage probably will be different than mine.
The only choice for me is Canon's 28-135mm. As I tend to shoot more telephoto than wide angle it is not that bad, but it is quite heavy for what it does.
I need WA for shooting sculpture in confined spaces (I'm an art historian). It's often impossible to stand far enough back from a 7-foot-tall statue in a museum setting to get it all in with a normal lens, so having a WA lens is essential for me.
I got the 40D from Futureshop through a friend who worked there getting his employee discount. Saved me a few hundred dollars.
I went with the 40D because there were just a few minor things that were better on the 40D compared to the XSI. Nothing that really made me say I have to have it because of this or that, but just small things like faster, larger (i prefer the size) better low light. The XSI wasn't even out when I was about to purchase the camera, so I wasn't sure how much different it would be from the XTI, but the XSI appears to be a wonderful camera.
Money wasn't a real issue, when you buy something that you plan to use for years, a few hundred dollars is nothing at all and shouldn't stop you from getting something you want.
Having said all that, I'm extremely pleased with the camera.
I went with the 40D because there were just a few minor things that were better on the 40D compared to the XSI. Nothing that really made me say I have to have it because of this or that, but just small things like faster, larger (i prefer the size) better low light. The XSI wasn't even out when I was about to purchase the camera, so I wasn't sure how much different it would be from the XTI, but the XSI appears to be a wonderful camera.
Money wasn't a real issue, when you buy something that you plan to use for years, a few hundred dollars is nothing at all and shouldn't stop you from getting something you want.
Having said all that, I'm extremely pleased with the camera.
I don't understand the problem with "Canon lenses" and focus, unless you read somewhere that some people were having such problems. By the way, there always is a portion of camera users (all brands), who indeed have problems with new cameras or lenses, including dirty sensors right out of the factory (all brands) as posted right here in this forum.
Nikon cameras autofocus much faster? In reality, if there is there are any differences between brands (relating to focus speed), that's not noticed by the user. Well, perhaps with entry-level cameras that's possible. Have you noticed what cameras sports journalists use? Lots of Canon and lenses, lots but not as many Nikon cameras and lenses, and so forth. That's an area where fast focus is highly sought.
Both brands are capable of "burst shooting" while still maintaining auto focus. If you look at the specs, you will notice that the burst rate for Nikon and Canon is about the same. Now, there are times when an outo-focus can be slowed. For example, when trying to take a wide-angle photo of two shower walls that have tiles, shooting through branches, or in the dark with flash. Some may be faster than others, not necessarily the auto-focus system, but the beam of light that tells the auto-focus how far the subject is.
Landscapes, cityscapes, all are very popular these days, and that's one reason for the popularity of wide-angle lenses. Action-photo with wide angle lenses is real cool too, and so night shots that show small spaces such as to interior of one's car as the foreground. I have seen some amazing crowded-sidewalk photos of people taken with wide angle-lenses while walking.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The XT, XTi and XSi don't focus any faster than the other. The lens you put on the body has the greatest impact on focus speed. Nikon, Canon, and Sony aren't really any different in this regard.
Some people complain that the XT/XTi is too small and light - that it is cramped. For you, it's a good thing so just know that there are those who hold the 40D to be the "best" size and weight.
Canon does make good walk-around lenses, have you seen the 28-200mm, 55-250mm, or 28-300mm lenses? They aren't top of the line L glass, but they still do quite well. The low profile 18-200mm from Nikon isn't the fastest or best (to say nothing of lens creep) but it still has a great deal of value as an all-around lens. Physics limit us to small focal ranges for maximum optical quality - you simply can't change that.
You may want to check a few more direct comparisons before making such general comments - they don't seem to be warranted. I have owned a LOT of Canon bodies XT-->30D-->5D-->1Ds and the autofocus only *barely* changes on the 1 series cameras. Other than that, there was no appreciable difference in auto focus speed from the body.
I tried Xsi in a store and I own xti (I tried xti and xt in a store too at the same time just to be sure). Xsi focused very fast. Xti was a little bit slower and xt had difficulty to focus. I put the same kit lens on all of them, just to be sure. Well it wasn't very extensive test, not a lab test too, but that was all I could do without buying it. Xsi has DIGIC III Image Processor and xti has DIGIC II Image Processor. So that is probably the reason.
In real life I sometimes get focus problems when I press shutter button and picture is not taken because camera can't focus. I know that there is some situations when automatic focus doesn't work, but I was getting problems in simple compositions.
I never tried Pro Canon bodies, so I cannot comment. I think the reason journalist uses Canon and not Nikon, is MORE pro bodies for Canon and better than Nikon, everything is more available and L lenses.
However my description as a photographer is quite different. I don't see myself spending $2500+ on a body, plus $1000+ on L lenses. I am not that good photographer and photography is sooooo far for being my bread and butter. I would like to improve my skills, but I don't see how more expensive body and lens will do that. I might get better pictures optically and they will have more megapixels, so what? Any SLR lens will be better than point and shoot. Bigger sensor will improve pictures too.
So 28-300 mm is too big, too heavy and to expensive for me.
55-250 is too much telephoto to make it walk around lens.
28-200 is good, but it would be better if it had IS.
So at this point 28-135 is better choice for me.
Lens creep... Well many consumer grade zoom lens will creep just because of the way they are constructed. Lens extends a lot and it just become too heavy.
Third party lenses? Might be that is the way to go?
I tried Xsi in a store and I own xti (I tried xti and xt in a store too at the same time just to be sure). Xsi focused very fast. Xti was a little bit slower and xt had difficulty to focus. I put the same kit lens on all of them, just to be sure. Well it wasn't very extensive test, not a lab test too, but that was all I could do without buying it. Xsi has DIGIC III Image Processor and xti has DIGIC II Image Processor. So that is probably the reason.
In real life I sometimes get focus problems when I press shutter button and picture is not taken because camera can't focus. I know that there is some situations when automatic focus doesn't work, but I was getting problems in simple compositions.
I never tried Pro Canon bodies, so I cannot comment. I think the reason journalist uses Canon and not Nikon, is MORE pro bodies for Canon and better than Nikon, everything is more available and L lenses.
However my description as a photographer is quite different. I don't see myself spending $2500+ on a body, plus $1000+ on L lenses. I am not that good photographer and photography is sooooo far for being my bread and butter. I would like to improve my skills, but I don't see how more expensive body and lens will do that. I might get better pictures optically and they will have more megapixels, so what? Any SLR lens will be better than point and shoot. Bigger sensor will improve pictures too.
So 28-300 mm is too big, too heavy and to expensive for me.
55-250 is too much telephoto to make it walk around lens.
28-200 is good, but it would be better if it had IS.
So at this point 28-135 is better choice for me.
Lens creep... Well many consumer grade zoom lens will creep just because of the way they are constructed. Lens extends a lot and it just become too heavy.
Third party lenses? Might be that is the way to go?
The processor has nothing to do with autofocus speed.
Some Canon pro bodies cost under $2,500. For example a D5 with a full-size sensor body costs under $2,200.
If you read the XT manual, you will notice that the camera does not take the photo not because it can't focus, but because something in the way you are taking the photo does not match. You will see a sort of warning on the viewfinder as the green LED's flash on/off, except for in a couple of modes where you can override the camera's automatic selections by the camera.
Some L primes cost under $1,000 each. However, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make outstanding lenses for Canon (or Nikon, or Pentax, or Olympus). Most primes are fast, and lighter than those with IS or zooms.
Take a look at Canon and non-Canon lenses. You will notice several highly regarded Canon lenses under $1,000:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406
In real life I sometimes get focus problems when I press shutter button and picture is not taken because camera can't focus. I know that there is some situations when automatic focus doesn't work, but I was getting problems in simple compositions.
I never tried Pro Canon bodies, so I cannot comment. I think the reason journalist uses Canon and not Nikon, is MORE pro bodies for Canon and better than Nikon, everything is more available and L lenses.
However my description as a photographer is quite different. I don't see myself spending $2500+ on a body, plus $1000+ on L lenses. I am not that good photographer and photography is sooooo far for being my bread and butter. I would like to improve my skills, but I don't see how more expensive body and lens will do that. I might get better pictures optically and they will have more megapixels, so what? Any SLR lens will be better than point and shoot. Bigger sensor will improve pictures too.
So 28-300 mm is too big, too heavy and to expensive for me.
55-250 is too much telephoto to make it walk around lens.
28-200 is good, but it would be better if it had IS.
So at this point 28-135 is better choice for me.
Lens creep... Well many consumer grade zoom lens will creep just because of the way they are constructed. Lens extends a lot and it just become too heavy.
Third party lenses? Might be that is the way to go?
The processor has nothing to do with autofocus speed.
Some Canon pro bodies cost under $2,500. For example a D5 with a full-size sensor body costs under $2,200.
If you read the XT manual, you will notice that the camera does not take the photo not because it can't focus, but because something in the way you are taking the photo does not match. You will see a sort of warning on the viewfinder as the green LED's flash on/off, except for in a couple of modes where you can override the camera's automatic selections by the camera.
Some L primes cost under $1,000 each. However, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make outstanding lenses for Canon (or Nikon, or Pentax, or Olympus). Most primes are fast, and lighter than those with IS or zooms.
Take a look at Canon and non-Canon lenses. You will notice several highly regarded Canon lenses under $1,000:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406
The processor has nothing to do with autofocus speed.
Some Canon pro bodies cost under $2,500. For example a 5D with a full-size sensor body costs under $2,200, which translates to under $2,000 right now with a $300.00 discount from Canon.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397314-REG/Canon_0296B002_EOS_5D_Digital_Camera.html
If you read the XT manual, you will notice that the camera does not take the photo not because it can't focus, but because something in the way you are taking the photo does not match. You will see a sort of warning on the viewfinder as the green LED's flash on/off, except for in a couple of modes where you can override the camera's automatic selections by the camera.
Some L primes cost under $1,000 each. However, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make outstanding lenses for Canon (or Nikon, or Pentax, or Olympus). Most primes are fast, and lighter than those with IS or zooms.
Take a look at Canon and non-Canon lenses. You will notice several highly regarded Canon lenses under $1,000:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406
Also, keep in mind that a lens does not have to be "L" to help with high IQ. Look at the cheap 50mm f/1.8
Some Canon pro bodies cost under $2,500. For example a 5D with a full-size sensor body costs under $2,200, which translates to under $2,000 right now with a $300.00 discount from Canon.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397314-REG/Canon_0296B002_EOS_5D_Digital_Camera.html
If you read the XT manual, you will notice that the camera does not take the photo not because it can't focus, but because something in the way you are taking the photo does not match. You will see a sort of warning on the viewfinder as the green LED's flash on/off, except for in a couple of modes where you can override the camera's automatic selections by the camera.
Some L primes cost under $1,000 each. However, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make outstanding lenses for Canon (or Nikon, or Pentax, or Olympus). Most primes are fast, and lighter than those with IS or zooms.
Take a look at Canon and non-Canon lenses. You will notice several highly regarded Canon lenses under $1,000:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406
Also, keep in mind that a lens does not have to be "L" to help with high IQ. Look at the cheap 50mm f/1.8
I still think something was off on the testing you did. If the cameras were all at the factory default and using the same lens, and you focused them in the proper way, there should be absolutely no difference in focus speed -- that is 99% related to the lens itself.