Finally took the DSLR plunge

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob, Dec 26, 2005.

  1. Bob

    Bob Guest

    I've owned several film SLRs and have a few point-and-shoot digitals. The
    current prices/rebates were too-tempting-to-resist. So, with a little
    pressure from Santa, I just bought:

    Canon 20D
    Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

    I, now, can't afford to eat for the next two years, but I'm too fat, anyway.
    All is good.

    After I get a PBASE account setup I'll post some pictures.

    To my eye, at least, the results are amazing. I only regret that I waited so
    long to get some quality digital equipment.

    Bob, Dec 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. You misspelled 'Satan'.
    Welcome to the dark side! (I recommend eating even less for the next 4
    months and getting the 10-22 for some real fun.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob

    Bob Guest

    You're correct. I should have written "Satan". It would have been more

    Yeah, I've looked at some of the super-wide zooms. The two I've seen are
    Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.6 and the Sigma 10-22mm f/4-5.6.

    Two things worry me about the Canon, though -- it's an EF-S, and Canon
    doesn't post the MTF charts, for it. The MTF's for the Sigma look good --
    but the 'wide-open' data plots are for f/4 -- and even I could build a
    low-distortion lens at f/4, right?

    Any opinions?

    Bob, Dec 26, 2005
  4. It's fine. Everyone raves about it. The only superwide for the APS-C format
    that you can use on a FF would be the Sigma 12-24, and it's kind of a
    clunker. I have the 10-22 on the 300D, and it's a real pleasure. Between the
    weight and the bulbous front element, I really doubt I'd use the 12-24
    anywhere near as much as I used the 10-22.
    I think you have that backwards, or something. f/4 is the fastest superwides
    get for APS-C.

    Anyway, the off brand APS-C superwides are, according to what I've read, not
    bad at all. I'd be a bit leery of them, since the EF-S mount lets the lens
    get closer to the sensor, and for lenses that wide, the extreme amount of
    retrofocus involved _should_ result in optical performance compromises. But
    in real life, the reports I've seen have them being fine.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 26, 2005
  5. Bob wrote:
    What point-and-shoot cameras are you comparing the 20D against?
    David J Taylor, Dec 26, 2005
  6. Bob

    Bob Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    Nikon Coolpix 990, Canon A70 and S400.

    Bob, Dec 26, 2005
  7. Bob

    Jasen Guest

    At least you didn't get the opposite pressure from the wife! Many of us
    have no such least I don't :-(
    Jasen, Dec 26, 2005
  8. Thanks, Bob. Hardly surprising that the (year 2004) 8.2MP 20D beats a
    (year 2000) 3MP Nikon 990 (although it lacks the versatility of the swivel
    body). More disappointing about Canon's point-and-shoot cameras though.

    David J Taylor, Dec 26, 2005
  9. Bob

    Eatmorepies Guest

    I have had my L lenses since May of this year - I can never go back.

    Look at the EF 17-40mm f4L or the 16-35 f2.8L. Both will fit onto your next
    camera body, unlike an S lens. I predict that, like me, having bought the
    finest lenses you will upgrade your body in a couple of years - probably to
    a full frame sensor. I have the 16-35 which is excellent. I am prepared to
    accept that 16mm is not exceptionally wide on a 1.6x sensor - so I sometimes

    Stay with L.

    Eatmorepies, Dec 26, 2005
  10. Bob

    Scott W Guest

    You can see the MTF curves for the Canon 10-22 here

    I don't know why they don't have this on the US site.

    Scott W, Dec 26, 2005
  11. Bob

    Skip M Guest

    See, you just have to get your wife involved in the madness, too! I did,
    and the only downside is that I keep having to buy two of everything. Which
    is how we ended up with two 20Ds and two 5Ds... I can feel my AmEx card
    cringe in my back pocket every time we pass by Calumet...
    Skip M, Dec 26, 2005
  12. Have fun! That's a high-quality set of gear you've got there.

    Start saving for some wider glass, though!
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 26, 2005
  13. My Tokina 12-24mm is f4. That's a drawback, of course. I'd prefer a
    faster lens. But I can use much slower shutter speeds with such a
    wide lens than I could with a longer lens. And I use it more for
    things than for people, and things mostly hold still (compared to
    people), again letting me use slower shutter speeds. And there wasn't
    a faster lens in that range available. And I could afford it.

    Life is full of these little tradeoffs.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 26, 2005
  14. Bob

    Matt Ion Guest

    Yeah, well, that's what happens when you're using lenses that are worth
    more than the cheap cameras you're comparing to, combined - there's
    BOUND to be a slight difference in the quality of the optics.

    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0551-6, 12/24/2005
    Tested on: 12/26/2005 3:12:12 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    Matt Ion, Dec 26, 2005
  15. Bob

    Jasen Guest

    tried. no luck, but she loves what I take myself. Did her up a couple of
    gorgeous prints of some of her favourites for Xmas.......maybe I can woo her
    to let me buy some wide glass?? ;-)
    Jasen, Dec 27, 2005
  16. Bob

    Skip M Guest

    That could work. "Honey, I know you like this, but think how much better it
    would look if I could get the whole room in the shot!"
    At least you won't have to buy two of them, like I do... ;-/
    Skip M, Dec 27, 2005
  17. Bob

    Jasen Guest

    So true Skip, so true.
    Jasen, Dec 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.