Up To 50% Off Regatta Clothing + An Extra 10% Discount With Code: MSSEXTRA10

if you had to choose?


certx 14 415 1 United States
30 Mar 2007 12:59AM
Ok.... I have no experience with dSLR's, but about to buy one. Now that I've managed to be permitted to buy a Canon 400D (started at 350D, but convinced the bank of wife to let me get the 400), I have the opportunity to get a package with a couple of choices. It will be one of them.

Package A:
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens
Canon EF 75-300 F/4.0-5.6 III Lens
.45x Wide Angle Conversion Lens

Package B:
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 High Speed Zoom Lens
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Lens
.45x Wide Angle Conversion Lens

Package C:
Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF Lens
Tamron 75-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro AF Lens
.45x Wide Angle Convertion Lens

Which would you choose if this was your first dSLR, and you wanted the extended range of the XX-300 zoom, as well as the standard kit lens that comes with the camera? AND, couldn't afford at this particular time to lay out the extra $$ for better lenses right away, but still wanted to get to experience the longer zoom until you could go for a higher end set. So,the purchase WILL be one of the above packages... just looking for which would be the better choice of the three.

Thanks in advance!
Curtis
chrisfroud 16 521
30 Mar 2007 1:21AM
Personally I'd go for package A because 28 mm on a 1.5x crop camera is not very wide-angle at all. Whats the difference in price of all the packages?
kezeka 14 79 United States
30 Mar 2007 1:26AM
I know the canon 75-300 has the softest edges i have ever laid eyes on, even softer than the kit lens. The Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro is an excellent lens for the money. Personally i would suggest that you buy this lens with the canon kit (18-55mm). I havent been exactly pleased with it, but it isn't as awful as people make it out to be. As for the .45x wide angle conversion lens, i have no idea what it is so i can't comment on it.

As for the camera, there are no major upgrades on the 400D over the 350D, the extra 2mp aren't going to get you far, and the "sensor cleaner" is worthless from the tests i have seen. So save your money for a better lens in the range that you find yourself using more often. The lens makes the camera, not the other way around. You could have a 1DS mkII and a kit lens and you would still get the same optical quality as the kit and a 350D.

hope that helps,
~Josh
LAF 18 1.7k
30 Mar 2007 2:23AM
The Canon 18-55 isn't half as bad as people expect, I'd go for this as an uber-cheap kit lens and the Sig 70-300.

NB: The 350D is pretty obsolete as a new buy BUT the BP511 batteries are easy to come by, unlike the propriety POS that the 400D uses, otherwise the 400D has a lot of bennefts.
bmh1 15 572 1 United Kingdom
30 Mar 2007 4:49AM

Quote:NB: The 350D is pretty obsolete as a new buy BUT the BP511 batteries are easy to come by, unlike the propriety POS that the 400D uses, otherwise the 400D has a lot of bennefts.


The 350D and 400D take the same batteries (NB-2LH) and can use the same battery grip.

Regards,

Bernard
ripleysalien 14 1.2k 11 United Kingdom
30 Mar 2007 6:34AM
Get the 400 body only, a Sigma 10-20mm and a Sigma or tamron 70 - 300mm macro. when the 300 is not long enough get a 1.4 converter.
I use the "obsolete" 350D and both lenses above, some of the really good togs on here use the Sig 10-20 with no complaints, you will find the kit lens is "not wide enough"
very quickly.
Dont forget to budget for a new bag, tripod, filters, cable release, rocket blower, spare batteries, etc.


steve

Of the three packages if I had to it would be B.

Also dont forget the x1.6ish conversion when using a small sensor camera eg Sigma 10-20mm equates to roughly a 16-35mmish
So a 300mm is (dont quote me) 460mm Someone will correct me if its wrong.
cambirder 17 7.2k England
30 Mar 2007 9:30AM

Quote:.45x Wide Angle Conversion Lens


These are for use on compacts not SLR lenses. The only place I have ever seen these offered as part as a package have been on Ebay scams.

Where have you seen these packages?
certx 14 415 1 United States
30 Mar 2007 3:47PM
Ok, right up front... SORRY THIS IS SO LONG:


Quote:Personally I'd go for package A because 28 mm on a 1.5x crop camera is not very wide-angle at all. Whats the difference in price of all the packages?



Quote:I know the canon 75-300 has the softest edges i have ever laid eyes on, even softer than the kit lens. The Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro is an excellent lens for the money. Personally i would suggest that you buy this lens with the canon kit (18-55mm).


I was thinking the same thing about the "wide" angle of 28mm, but I've heard some stories of VERY soft edges on the Canon 75-300mm. Can someone confirm or dispute that? If that is truly a problem, maybe I can convince them to give me the wider short lens from canon (or comparable), and the longer lens from sigma or tamron? Smile The price difference between the packages is negligible...ranging from around $1030 to $1060. Which by the way, is already stretching the limits of the Bank of Wife's tolerance. LOL


Quote:As for the camera, there are no major upgrades on the 400D over the 350D, the extra 2mp aren't going to get you far, and the "sensor cleaner" is worthless from the tests i have seen.


Thanks, however, the 2MP difference, can make a difference in print size. I will be having prints made as large as 17x22 (relatively frequently). The digital print shops here, and specifically the one I prefer to use, won't accept an image file for print that has a native ppi (no image resizing) of less than 150 at the requested print size. The 350D is only 135 ppi on the 17" side. So, those 2MP do make a difference to me for prints.

As for the "sensor cleaner", personally I don't believe in "built-in" maintenance on anything. I don't even bother considering it as a factor. No matter the product or industry, that type of built-in "feature" usually just isn't worth its hype.



Quote:These are for use on compacts not SLR lenses. The only place I have ever seen these offered as part as a package have been on Ebay scams.

Where have you seen these packages?



This is actually at a local Wolf Camera store. I've seen those "HUGE KIT" things on ebay. This is just the camera body and a lens package.... and nowhere near as cheap as those ebay packages. Well, it's not a horrible price, total is right at $1050. As a side note about those ebay deals, I considered doing one of those, but I just don't trust 'em. Wink

Truly, thank you all for your replies. They truly have been informative. Unfortunately, I'm limited to $1000, and already stretching it a little beyond that, under the premise that $1000...$1050.... it's basically the same thing. Smile

I'd still be interested in hearing any of the responses to the above. And especially the softness of the long canon lens.

Thanks,
Curtis
cambirder 17 7.2k England
30 Mar 2007 4:10PM

Quote:This is actually at a local Wolf Camera store


It still seems odd that they are packaging in that .45x converter. If you do get one use it as a paperweight as its no damn good on a DSLR.
certx 14 415 1 United States
30 Mar 2007 5:16PM

Quote:It still seems odd that they are packaging in that .45x converter. If you do get one use it as a paperweight as its no damn good on a DSLR.


After doing a little price searching, I've come to see that the "package" price is basically the same as the body, the short lens, and the long lens, sold separately. So, I suppose they are just trying to put the most commonly purchased items in a "convenient" PACKAGE. So I suppose I can just mix and match as I see fit. Your comments on all this, is what made me go back and look at individual pricing to see about combining whatever I wanted in the kit. Thanks!

p.s. maybe they just have these things laying around as unsellable stock that they're just throwing in to try to get rid of. Don't know.
nikon5700ite 17 1.8k
30 Mar 2007 9:03PM
I would, and do, practice my stitching techniques ahead of spending money on a WA adaptor for any camera, DSLR or digicam. Canonstitch does quite a good job.
kezeka 14 79 United States
30 Mar 2007 11:04PM
From what i understand you wont be seeing much of a difference in 2mp, if any at all. I know a couple people with mkIIn's who never complain about the 8+mp sensor on it, that is really a non-issue. I still hold true to the saying that the lens makes the camera, not the other way around.
certx 14 415 1 United States
31 Mar 2007 1:50AM

Quote:From what i understand you wont be seeing much of a difference in 2mp, if any at all. I know a couple people with mkIIn's who never complain about the 8+mp sensor on it, that is really a non-issue. I still hold true to the saying that the lens makes the camera, not the other way around.


Perhaps you just missed the part that explains the 2MP part for me in my earlier post, so I'll reiterate it here:

Thanks, however, the 2MP difference, can make a difference in print size. I will be having prints made as large as 17 x 22 (relatively frequently). The digital print shops here, and specifically the one I prefer to use, won't accept an image file for print that has a native ppi (no image resizing) of less than 150 at the requested print size. The 350D is only 135 ppi on the 17" side. So, those 2MP do make a difference to me for prints.

NOTE 1:
I will be having prints made as big as 17" x 22" relatively frequently.

NOTE 2 (IMPORTANT PART):
Print shop I use will NOT accept image files with native ppi less than 150 at the requested print size.

NOTE 3:
350D on its highest resolution is only 135ppi on the 17" side of a 17" x 22" landscape oriented image.

Conclusion:
350D: 135 less than 150 equals NO 17" x 22" print
400D: 152 grater than 150 equals 17" x 22" print

I assume that if you had those 3 notes above applied to yourself, those 2MP would then make a difference to you? Unless, of course, you have your own several thousand dollar large paper photo printer. Which I don't.

For what it's worth, Kezeka, I agree with you about the lens making the camera, if ppi is not an issue for prints. I'd really like to be able to drop a grand on lens(es), but as I don't have that 200K/yr salary yet, and I have two $350+/mo car payments, a $1000+/mo mortgage payment, etc, I am limited in one time layouts of cash. So... rather than buy $1000 worth of lenses and no camera to attach them to, in which case, MP is a totally moot point altogether, I have to look at what i want to do.

I want to get prints as stated above. I want to be able to do some short wide angle shots, and also want to be able to get much longer shots. Where I live, many of those often have to be shot from across more than one farmers' fields in order to get them. So... If I want a camera to attach the lenses to, and be able to get prints made as big as I want, and am limited in single transaction funding, I don't have a lot of choices. So, I'll take what I can get in the lenses, and then begin saving for that $500 - $1000 or more long lens.

I hope this explained it better.

Curtis
Superficial 14 147
1 Apr 2007 3:26AM
OK, perhaps you local shop is a bit pedantic, but I think you're reading too much into the megapixels thing. In reality you will not notice a difference between 8mp and 10mp if you're using the Canon kit lens. If I took an 8mp photo and resized it to 10mp in something decent (Photoshop, genuine fractals etc) then neither you nor the print shop would be able to tell the difference, and the end result would be identical.

With better lenses this is likely to be a different thing altogether. Buy a decent lens and you probably will see a slight difference going from 8mp to 10.

Just as an example, I'd be inclined to say that with my 50mm f/1.8 (brilliant lens), on a 4mp ish camera, that would produce sharper 8mp images than my 18-55 kit lens. If you see what I mean. Basically I'm saying the lens is by far more important than the number of pixels,

I really dislike my kit lens. It is nothing compared to the 50mm f/1.8. If I were you, I'd just get the camera body and the 50mm. Then later you can upgrade lenses as you see fit. Not everyone NEEDS a long lens, and you might discover that you don't use the longer lens and you'd have been better off saving the money for, say, a flash, a wider lens, tripods etc.
certx 14 415 1 United States
2 Apr 2007 7:39PM
Ok, all other comments/opinion about MP aside, all the "better" expensive lenses aside, of the choices above, which of the lenses has the better glass in them? Not what would be a better way to go. I have no other way to go at the moment. So, of the choices of lenses listed above, just which would have the better glass?

Thanks,
Curtis

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.