Thread: ***DSLR Thread***

Originally Posted by trdi

You need 2.8 lens. If Canon 2.8 70-200 is too much, you should take a look at Sigma 70-200. Apart from 300-800mm I think 70-200 is the best lens Sigma has made. A good Sigma 70-200 is practically equal to Canon 70-200 - for considerably less money.

Sigma stuff is great. I've actually been more impressed with Sigma's lenses in a lot of cases than I have been with Nikon's. They seem to me to be more ruggedly built and they definitely focus much quieter. Also, they tend to hunt less with their AF.

The price point can't be argued with, either. Usually about 10-15% less than your name brand gear.

Since I already have the 70-200 f4, I am not going to dump it for a 2.8 so I am going to have to make due. I guess I'm going to have to suck it up and spend $900 for the S lens or be content with the 18-55 kit lens.

Originally Posted by rinkrat

be content with the 18-55 kit lens.

No way.

I read that you are worried about S mount being replaced by some other stuff or abandoned completely because of full frame cameras. Don't be. S series is serious stuff and it will be more and more important, not less. Canon does not have any intention to abandon 1.6× cameras. Full frame will remain top level for a very long time, because top quality material is needed for FF program. And there is no industry in the world that would be offering only top level products. The only change in market might be in the range of entry level DSLRs (like Rebel) or top compacts ($900+ range). I can't say what is going to happen there, but it seems top end compacts are being replaced by entry level DSLRs.

Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets

Sigma stuff is great. I've actually been more impressed with Sigma's lenses in a lot of cases than I have been with Nikon's. They seem to me to be more ruggedly built and they definitely focus much quieter. Also, they tend to hunt less with their AF.

The price point can't be argued with, either. Usually about 10-15% less than your name brand gear.

Actually, I made a mistake there. I think Sigma 120-300 might be the top of their program. This lens is sooo fantastic.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...74&navigator=3

Originally Posted by rinkrat

I won't be using the walkabout for sports so I'm not sure if I even need the 2.8. I am afraid to get an S lens since they are going to be outmoded as soon as the full frame models take over and if I am spending that much on a lens I want it to outlast this camera. The weight difference sounds good so I am tempted. I'll do a little more homework.

The 17-55 would leave me with a gap between 55mm-70mm range.

I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.

I don't think you have to worry about Canon's APC sized sensors (1.6 crop) going anywhere for a long, long time. Having only two full frame models, it lends some justification as to why you would spend $8000 on their flagship camera (1Ds Mk II). If they moved all their bodies to full frame, they would have a hard time convincing pros that a slightly better Digic processor, AF, and weather sealing is worth $6000. This, coupled with the the fact that of all three sensor sizes that they offer, the 1.6 crop has been by far the most successful, and the concentration recently on only rolling out EF-s lenses (there hasn't been a new EF in a long time, only updates), I think Canon is convinced the 1.6 crop sensor is a HUGE potential market for them, the entry DSLR is where it is at right now, which means APC sensors, even for prosumer bodies.

As for the gap between 55-70, I don't think you will miss it at all. For a full frame, that is a gap between 88mm and 112mm. I currently have a gap from 85mm and 135mm, so a considerably wider gap than you will see, and I still don't feel the need to run out and get a 100mm, I don't even think about it.

As for the 17-85mm f/4-5.6, it all depends on what you want it for. If you are shooting outdoors or with flash, it will be a great lens. One of the interesting things about it though is that the majority of the zoom range is actually in the f/5.6 range. If I recall correctly, the stops are as follows:
17 mm - f/4
22 mm - f/4.5
24 mm - f/5.6
So at 24mm, you are already at the slow end of the lens. The IS is good for 2 to 3 stops, so you could conceivably hand hold this lens at f/5.6 with IS where you could do it with a f/2.8 or f/2.0 without IS, but it only helps you when your subject is static, so not great for people in moderate action. So, if you need 1/200 sec to get the shot with a f/2.8, you are going to need to go down to 1/50 sec with a f/5.6, which is a lot more time to get motion blur in your subject.

I always hate making these decisions, because one is almost twice the cost of the other, but you do get 4 times the amount light, therefor 4 times the speed. Really, it all comes down to what to do with the lens and what is important to you. For me, I am such a sucker for natural light and background blur, I almost always go for the faster lens, which almost always results in a dispute with the wifey over the cost

Ok gents, after having my arm twisted I have decided on the EF-s17-55 f/2.8 IS. I just ordered it from Amazon for delivery on Monday.

Thanks for the help, I'm sure that once I get over the buyer's remorse I will enjoy this thing. With the f/2.8 through the whole range and the IS, it should be a fun low light lens. One advantage that it had over the L lenses is that it is under 4" long so I can still bring it to Staples Center. Now I need to upgrade my 70-200 f/4 but I'll save that for another day.

I think you are going to love that lens, it will be on your camera constantly.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_17_55_28_is_usm - just keep on clicking on "more"

Heres a few pics I took while I was in Seattle last week.

Mt. Saint Helens

The Blue Angels

Originally Posted by rinkrat

Ok gents, after having my arm twisted I have decided on the EF-s17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Very nice choice. IS, better USM motor, constant 2.8, 17 wide...

You will never notice the "gap" to 70mm, that's for sure.

110.60 mm = 4.35433 in

Damn i hope I can get into Staples with the extra .35433 of an inch. Anyone know how strict they are on the 4" rule?