Q:300D or 10D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by [email protected], Nov 17, 2003.

  1. Iv@n

    Don Coon Guest

    Huh? I fail to see the logic. You paid about $100 extra for the lens that
    came with your camera -- it wasn't free. It's part of a kit. You *needed*
    it. You got what you paid for. A 35mm equivalent 28-90mm ---- yawn.

    Bet most 300D users won't be satisfied with that limited range for very
    long; nor with the quality. Most will travel the same road most 10D buyers
    have --- more versatile and higher quality lenses. Few are going to be
    satisfied with that $100 lens for long. And once you've seen "SHARP" and
    "well-built", there's no going back!

    Welcome aboard! It's a fun, if expensive trip.

    PS- Todd will eventually buy that 17-40. He just needs to recover from his
    last outlay : )
     
    Don Coon, Nov 19, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Iv@n

    Christian Guest

    If you look at the cost of the kit lens, it's practically negligible all
    things considered. If you look at the cost of buying a lens with
    comparable coverage for the 10D, it's a lot more. That was my point.
    People say "Oh look, the 10D isn't that much more than the 300D and has
    lots more features!" They don't realise that the 28-90mm range provided by
    the kit lens for the 300D is actually very expensive to replicate in the
    10D.
    Maybe you're right but a lot of the people I'm seeing buying the 300D will
    just be happy with the kit lens for quite some time.
     
    Christian, Nov 19, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Iv@n

    Mark M Guest

    If you look at the cost of the kit lens, it's practically negligible all
    You're simply wrong here.

    A comparable lens would be the following:
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2F5138B5
    $89.95 USA Warranty Canon 28-80 (and no, the 10mm difference at the long end
    is NOT significant).
     
    Mark M, Nov 19, 2003
    #23
  4. Iv@n

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ray Fischer, Nov 19, 2003
    #24
  5. Iv@n

    Mark B. Guest

    That lens you're linking to would be equivalent to 45-128; not even close to
    the equivalent 28-90 with the 300D.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Nov 19, 2003
    #25
  6. Iv@n

    Mark B. Guest

    Sigma just announced a new version of their 17-35, available in December.
    I'm sure it won't be as good as the Canon L, but if it's anything like most
    of their other EX lenses, it might be a good budget alternative.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Nov 19, 2003
    #26
  7. Iv@n

    Mark M Guest

    Ah.
    I was thinking he meant an actual 28-90mm lens.
    He must mean the (?) 22-55?
    OK.
     
    Mark M, Nov 19, 2003
    #27
  8. Iv@n

    Don Coon Guest

    As I said, it cost you $100 exactly. The camera can be bought without the
    lens for $100 less.
    And a lot more quality but then these are the choices we have to make.
    If $250 is "very expensive." A Tokina 17-35 & Sigma 24-70 HL gives 36% more
    range (27-112mm) and arguably better quality glass.

    The 300D is $900 (without the 18-55) vs. $1500 for the 10D -- 40% more!
    Each individual has to decide whether that "isn't that much more..." Body
    vs. body it most surely is.

    Add lenses and we're at $1000 vs. $1750.

    Add $400 more to each for essentials (CF cards, extra battery, case, hood,
    filters, tripod, etc.).
    $1400 vs. $2150. The 300D is still much cheaper.

    But make the move to high quality glass and, percentage wise, the gap
    narrows. A significant number of 10D owners have more money in glass than
    the body. And, based on my experience, it's well worth it. I've got about
    $1600 in glass (17-40, 28-135, 50 1.8, 75-300) and will soon be between
    $1800 and $2100 when I replace the 75-300 with "L" or "EX" quality glass.
    That's where/when the initial difference in the cost of the body becomes
    less important and why you hear 10D owners say "get the 10D for more
    features." After all, they've paid well for "features" in their lens
    collection so it makes little sense to them to scrimp on the body : )

    If you think you'll be satisfied with a minimal 300D setup then you're
    surely correct, but.........
     
    Don Coon, Nov 19, 2003
    #28
  9. Iv@n

    Don Coon Guest

    Ray, go to the black board and write 5000 times: "I will be polite and use
    tact. I am not an ass."
    Unless you are.
     
    Don Coon, Nov 19, 2003
    #29
  10. No lens does everything well. I'd be willing to bet in some areas the
    Sigma will be superior. It just won't have the red-band.
     
    101101110100010, Nov 19, 2003
    #30
  11. Iv@n

    Todd Walker Guest

    What areas? Superior to the 17-40? Doubtful.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 19, 2003
    #31
  12. Yet still possible. Nothing prevents the "standard" from being
    improved. Unless one is a purist who refuses to believe any glass
    would dare to be better than an Canon L lens, or worse, who simply
    refuses to believe that any non-Canon AF mount lens could be better
    than Canon's own lenses. That's all.
     
    101101110100010, Nov 20, 2003
    #32
  13. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]_s54>,
    I'm not too familiar with that lens, but I do know one thing; it is not
    impossible to make a lens for the 1.6x crop factor that is optically
    good for $100; there is a steep cost curve for lenses based on the
    useful area on the focal plane. The lenses in high-end consumer
    digicams are as sharp in the area of concern as Canon L lenses are in
    the same area; the great expense involves making the lens sharp and
    distortion free for the larger format.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 20, 2003
    #33
  14. Iv@n

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    It may not be as sharp as the kit lens, though, in the area covered by
    the 300D's sensor. You can make lenses sharper for smaller formats for
    less money. Look at the prices.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 20, 2003
    #34
  15. The Sigma 17-35 doesn't have anywhere near the reputation of the 15-30. The
    Sigma 15-30 EX is darn close to best in class, if the the best. Yes I use
    it.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 20, 2003
    #35
  16. Iv@n

    JB Guest

    JB, Nov 20, 2003
    #36
  17. Iv@n

    Todd Walker Guest

    I never said either of those things. You are reading into my comments.
    The fact is that the 17-40 is among the best L lenses in optical
    quality, and I have a hard time believing that Sigma can make a lens of
    the same focal length range that is better. The Sigma 15-30 is a very
    good lens, but doesn't quite match up to the optical performance of the
    17-40.

    No, all Canon L lenses are not better than all Sigma lenses. But I think
    that the likelihood of Sigma making a lens that is superior to the 17-40
    is remote.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 20, 2003
    #37
  18. Iv@n

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Shove it up your ass. :)
    I am tired of George's incessant lying and cowardice. Comparing the
    price of a camera body with the price of camera and lens is just the
    latest of his many stupidities.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 22, 2003
    #38
  19. Iv@n

    Don Coon Guest

    Well, I guess that confirms beyond any doubt that you are, potty mouth.

    PLONK
     
    Don Coon, Nov 22, 2003
    #39
  20. Pricegrabber.com:

    SD-9 (10.2M Pixel Sensor, Interchangeable Lens, CF)
    Manufacturer: Sigma
    Lowest Price: $ 859.90
    Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF Autofocus Lens
    Manufacturer: Sigma
    Lowest Price: $ 82.35
    -------------------
    Total = $942.25

    EOS Digital Rebel EF-S 18-55mm Kit (6.5MP, 3072x2048)
    Manufacturer: Canon
    Lowest Price: $ 942.00


    Both the Sigma body and lens drawf the 300D's quality, which could not be
    worse. The lens is actually subcontracted to Fisher Price, and the body
    isn't up to low end prosumer standards. If you drop the SD9 it'll break
    your floor, and the 24-70 HF is a nice weighty lens with superb optical
    performance for the money, here is a comparison to one of the the best
    professional 24-70s available...
    http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/exlenscompare
     
    George Preddy, Nov 23, 2003
    #40
    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.