350D - Lens questions..

[Pierscoe1]

Hi all..

I'm hoping to upgrade from my PanasonicLumix FZ20 to a Canon EOS 350D soon.. and have some questions about lenses...

first of all, what range would I need to get as much (preferably more) magnification as my FZ20 (12x zoom)?

I'm on a budget, so won't be spending loads on lenses.. initially I'd like to get the packaged lens (Canon EF-S 18-55 (non-USM when with the black body.. USM with the silver body..does this matter?), and a zoom. I have heard a few criticisms of hte packaged lens.. should I worry about this, or is it only an issue when making poster-size prints for exhibition in the tate modern??

choices of zoom:

Canon EF 75-300mm f4/5.6 USM MK3 £170
Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro £100 (special offer when bought with SLR. normally £200)

now having a quick try in the shop, the Canon USM is faster to focus.. but what else should I consider? are there other better choices at this sort of price?

any other info/advice would be much appreciated!

thanks in advance

Piers

[Gemm]

Yes, USM is definitely worth considering. It's quieter and faster. And don't get put off by the kit lens. It may not be the best lens around but it is capable of taking good images. It's how you use it that's important.

For 70(75)-300 zoom, you can also add Sigma 70-300 APO (I'm not sure which one is the latest version though....). Although the focusing is noisier and slower than Canon USM, its optical quality is pretty good and it has 1:2 macro capability (and 1:1 with optional close-up filter).

[imperialism2024]

Pierscoe1 said:

Hi all..

I'm hoping to upgrade from my PanasonicLumix FZ20 to a Canon EOS 350D soon.. and have some questions about lenses...

I'd take a look at the 20D as well... as they're going out of production, prices are dropping rather quickly, and you'll find the 20D to be a much better body than the 350D.

Pierscoe1 said:

first of all, what range would I need to get as much (preferably more) magnification as my FZ20 (12x zoom)?

To get the equivanlent of a 12x zoom, you would need a lens that goes to 300mm. However, to get the same range as when you're zoomed all the way out, you would need a lens that goes down to about 24mm. And you won't find a 24-300mm lens that's any good.

Pierscoe1 said:

I'm on a budget, so won't be spending loads on lenses.. initially I'd like to get the packaged lens (Canon EF-S 18-55 (non-USM when with the black body.. USM with the silver body..does this matter?), and a zoom. I have heard a few criticisms of hte packaged lens.. should I worry about this, or is it only an issue when making poster-size prints for exhibition in the tate modern??

choices of zoom:

Canon EF 75-300mm f4/5.6 USM MK3 £170
Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro £100 (special offer when bought with SLR. normally £200)

now having a quick try in the shop, the Canon USM is faster to focus.. but what else should I consider? are there other better choices at this sort of price?

The Canon kit lens, IMO, is absolutely horrid. You would be best off with an upgraded lens to cover your wide zoom to slightly telephoto zoom range.

If you're on a budget, I would recommend going one of two routes:

1) If your photography falls into the wildlife/sports/spy/pervert category, then I would stick with the kit lens as you won't be using it often, and getting a decent telephoto lens that's not quite as powerful as you have in your FZ20, like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L lens, which runs about $550. That would equate to a 3.2x to 9.15x zoom.

2) If little of your photography will be telephoto, and mostly within the 1-3x range, I would probably go with the Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens, running about $500. Though pricier, it will give you equivalent of 0.77x zoom to 3.89x zoom (that's including wide angle), plus it will have better optical quality, and will have image stabilization. For telephoto, you could just use the FZ20, or wait to get a decent telephoto lens that's used. As far as the cost goes, in the US you'd save about $100 by just going with the camera body, so the upgraded kit lens would run about $400, which I think is within your price range.

Essentially, you're not going to find a piece of glass that will equate what is on the FZ20 because the FZ20's sensor is smaller, so much less light has to get through the lens. You need to evaluate whether your focus (no pun intended) will be toward normal or telephoto work, and then get a decent lens to cover that range. And also remember that with new (unused) lenses, 99% of the time, you get what you pay for: a cheap lens will have slower autofocus, inferior optical quality, and will be slow, causing visible blurriness in certain situations. IMO, cheap lenses are a waste of money because you will not be happy, in the long run, with that lens, and you're better off just putting the money toward getting a better lens down the road.

That being said, a kit will only perform as well as the photographer.

Also, you want to wait for the opinions of some of the Canon guys on the forum...

[J111]

Pierscoe1 said:

first of all, what range would I need to get as much (preferably more) magnification as my FZ20 (12x zoom)?

36 - 432mm 35mm equivalent. Since the 350D has a multiplication factor of 1.6x you'll need 22-270mm.

Pierscoe1 said:

I'm on a budget, so won't be spending loads on lenses.. initially I'd like to get the packaged lens (Canon EF-S 18-55 (non-USM when with the black body.. USM with the silver body..does this matter?)

Get the USM, it's very odd that the stone aged non-USM lens is being offered

Pierscoe1 said:

I have heard a few criticisms of hte packaged lens.. should I worry about this, or is it only an issue when making poster-size prints for exhibition in the tate modern??

It'll do. At f8 or smaller it's fine for most uses, wide open it's a bit soft. It also exhibits some fringing. These issues can largely be resolved in Photoshop.

Of the lenses you're considering the Canon is significantly superior, the equivalent Sigma is also worthy of consideration. I'd give serious consideration as to whether a 55-200 is more suitable, given the smaller package.

[Pierscoe1]

thanks for the input so far.. much appreciated.
I can't afford to be getting $500 lenses though.

just been looking at reviews on fredmiranda.com, and the canon 75-300 comes out rather poorly..

canon 75-300 : rating of 5.5 , 64% would recommend
tamron 70-300: rating of 7.7 , 90% would recommend

hmm.. and the tamron in £70 cheaper in jessops at the moment.

also, one I can't find a review of, but sounds good on paper:
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG £180

I've heard it mentioned favourably on forums, but can't find a review.. is it any good??




oops, just seen J111's post:

J111 said:

Get the USM, it's very odd that the stone aged non-USM lens is being offered

I guess they're trying to get rid of them, as most will prefer the black body, and thus put up with the non-USM rather than having the silver body??

J111 said:

Of the lenses you're considering the Canon is significantly superior, the equivalent Sigma is also worthy of consideration.

can I ask why you say that, as on the forums (mentioned above) the canon comes out much worse than the tamron....
oh, and is the sigma I've mentioned above the one you're referring to?


thanks again.. and keep it coming!

Edited by Pierscoe1 on Saturday 15th July 18:48

[J111]

Pierscoe1 said:

J111 said:

Of the lenses you're considering the Canon is significantly superior, the equivalent Sigma is also worthy of consideration.

can I ask why you say that, as on the forums (mentioned above) the canon comes out much worse than the tamron....
oh, and is the sigma I've mentioned above the one you're referring to?

Because I seem to be on crack today, well caught ! The Tamron is reportedly significantly superior

That is the Sigma in question - my father has the Nikon AF fit of this lens, it's impressive.

Edited by J111 on Saturday 15th July 18:54

[Zad]

Be aware that the (as yet un-named) successor to the 350D will probably be unveiled at Photokina 2006 at the end of September, with all the usual price-dropping of existing equipment, and up-speccing of bundles in order to move old stock.

[Pierscoe1]

J111 said:

Because I seem to be on crack today, well caught

hehe..

J111 said:

That is the Sigma in question - my father has the Nikon AF fit of this lens, it's impressive.

ah... I have heard several positive comments.. judging by your comments, I presume you think it'd be worthwhile spending the extra £80 ove rthe Tamron in order to get the Sigma APO DG (and what the hell does APO mean!??!)?
(only thing is, I think the jessops site has gone bonkers.. if you add the tamron lens to the 350D kit, the extra lens comes up as FREE in the basket !?!?)

Zad: Is this for definate?? I was under the impression the 350D was still relatively young in terms of product lifetime!?!? IF so, then I guess I should wait a bit.. ..but I want one.. ..now!

[J111]

Pierscoe1 said:

I presume you think it'd be worthwhile spending the extra £80 ove rthe Tamron in order to get the Sigma APO DG (and what the hell does APO mean!??!)?

It's a higher quality lens than the Tamron offering. It's said to have better optics and it undoubtedly has better fit and finish.

Apo = Apochromatic

[Gemm]

imperialism2024 said:

IMO, cheap lenses are a waste of money because you will not be happy, in the long run, with that lens, and you're better off just putting the money toward getting a better lens down the road.

That being said, a kit will only perform as well as the photographer.

I think if you have a limited budget and if that's the only lens you can afford, it'll have to do the job. And it will do the job fine. As I said before, it's how you use it. I've seen some great results from 18-55 kit lens. If a photographer is capable of it, it is possible to produce a good image. Personally I wouldn't just blame the lens for poor shots.


Canon 75-300 isn't really known as the best lens Canon has made. I'm not familiar with the Tamron, so I'll have to compare it with the Sigma. Sigma does seem to have better optical quality but, as I mentioned before, AF is slow and noisy. So it's really up to you whether you'd go for faster and quieter AF or slightly better quality & macro capability.

Edited by Gemm on Saturday 15th July 20:13

[imperialism2024]

Gemm said:

I think if you have a limited budget and if that's the only lens you can afford, it'll have to do the job. And it will do the job fine. As I said before, it's how you use it. I've seen some great results from 18-55 kit lens. If a photographer is capable of it, it is possible to produce a good image. Personally I wouldn't just blame the lens for poor shots.

A lot of whether the kit is worth it or not really depends on the price difference between the body and kit, I guess. If you're paying a $200 penalty for getting the kit over the body, I'd consider upgrading... but if it's a $100 difference or less, the kit lens can work as a starter lens. And if one won't be doing very much telephoto work, that money would be better spent on an upgraded lens to replace the kit's.

And while most of getting a good image comes down to the photographer, some of it is due to equipment.

[J111]

imperialism2024 said:

A lot of whether the kit is worth it or not really depends on the price difference between the body and kit, I guess. If you're paying a $200 penalty for getting the kit over the body, I'd consider upgrading... but if it's a $100 difference or less, the kit lens can work as a starter lens.

You're generally talking £40 or so.

The 18-55 lens is hardly the world's best optic, although I'm struggling to relate to the description of the current USM lens as 'absolutely horrid', but at that money it's a reasonable deal.

[Zad]

Pierscoe1 said:

Zad: Is this for definate?? I was under the impression the 350D was still relatively young in terms of product lifetime!?!? IF so, then I guess I should wait a bit.. ..but I want one.. ..now!

Far from definite alas. To keep sales up, Canon don't leak product launches as much as some of the other manufacturers do. I'm just going by the 'chatter' on places like dpreview.com. I had a rummage around to check dates:

EOS 300d launched late Aug 2003

EOS 350d launched Feb 2005 (available March 2005) about which it said:
"The EOS 350D (body only) is priced at £749 RRP inc VAT
The EOS 350D EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II lens kit is priced at £799 RRP inc VAT" (yikes!)

That would be an 18 month product cycle then

If anyone is interested, the 30d (not 350d) body is available from Dixons for between £715 and £644 (body and lens £700) paying by Egg card who seem to give 10% off certain things for some reason. www.hotukdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20634

When all sorts of deals start appearing, you can bet your bottom yen that a new machine is on the way, and the 30d's spec is probably not dissimilar to the 350d's successor (pure conjecture though).

[Pierscoe1]

Gemm said:

I'm not familiar with the Tamron, so I'll have to compare it with the Sigma. Sigma does seem to have better optical quality but, as I mentioned before, AF is slow and noisy. So it's really up to you whether you'd go for faster and quieter AF or slightly better quality & macro capability

does anyone know of a good (preferably uk-based) review site for lenses??
I can't find a review of the Sigma anywhere... and if I do, it'd be nice to find a site that also reviews the canon and tamron, so that I've got a consistency of reviews to look at...

at the moment, the tamron is looking good, due to the really rather positive reviews on fredmiranda, and the fact that it's £100, or even FREE if you believe the jessops website!!

[robdickinson]

Unlike computers etc, a good dSLR will still be good & usefull even when the new model is on the shelvesa, the 350d is a cracking camera and the kit lens is good , for the price. if you can get it cheap when the 400d is released that'd be good unless the 400d is somewhat superior.

[Pierscoe1]

age old debate...

do you wait a few months.. but then the new one might be better.. and then there might be another one that's a bit better that's due in another few months, and then the successor to the first one would be due a few months after that.. and then.............

thanks for your help everybody.. very informative!

[Imperialism2024]

Pierscoe1 said:

age old debate...

do you wait a few months.. but then the new one might be better.. and then there might be another one that's a bit better that's due in another few months, and then the successor to the first one would be due a few months after that.. and then.............

thanks for your help everybody.. very informative!

Well, the sooner you buy some equipment, the more time you'll have to use it. And that added experience will probably be better than all the extra bells and whistles on the new version.

[Pierscoe1]

indeed!!