My compact digital camera will go on e-bay this weekend and will be used to fund a DSLR.
Considering the Canon 400D and wanting to get people's thoughts for widefield piggyback and prime focus work.
One of my concerns is the 15-55mm (28-90mm equivelant) lens as suited to astrophotography. Will not be doing any prime focus stuff for 6-12 months.
What do you guys think? Is it worth the cash? Should I only get the body and get a Tamron or other lens instead that's better value for money? Really want a 28 - 90/135mm equivelant lens for terrestial stuff as well as astrophotography.
Bundled lenses from all the manufacturers are of suspect quality, they're always the low end of the range. All comes down to how much money you want to spend. I'd probably get the bundle (camera + lens) then upgrade later to an L or a good Sigma. But you could do lots more research and get a good Sigma straight off instead. I'm not a fan of Tamron but obviously others like them.
Hi John,
I would be interested to see how the 400d goes for imaging.
I have attached a pic I took with the standard 15-55mm lense at 35mm wide open. The lense is quiet sharp in the centre but shows abberations towards the corners like coma. Comparing it to one of my other f2.4/35mm lenses it gives similar results at corners but the f2.4 is sharper in the middle, stopped down to the same as the canon.
I think it should give you some nice widefields.
John, whatever you do don't pass up the opportunity to get a quality lens with the cash back offer. As RB suggested, spend a few extra dollars and get the 17-40L lens with the cashback offer, you will want a better lens in the future and $350 off that particular lens is not to be sneezed at.
John, whatever you do don't pass up the opportunity to get a quality lens with the cash back offer. As RB suggested, spend a few extra dollars and get the 17-40L lens with the cashback offer, you will want a better lens in the future and $350 off that particular lens is not to be sneezed at.
It's just a shame that they are not discounting the more premium F2.8 units, only the F/4's. By my thinking at the moment the lens that the 400D comes with stopped to F/4 will be a good start for this price and not worth the extra $700, unless someone can recommend better value for money Sigma lens or other brand lens.
Perhaps second hand is the best way to do this and get a premium lens that way.
p.s. thanks again for all the info.
I would say go on eBay and pick up a second-hand Canon EOS-350D. The extra two megapixels aren't really worth the extra outlay. Unless you're planning on printing billboards...
Spend the savings on a prime L-series lens.
The difference between an L-series lens and a stock lens is chalk and cheese.
I disagree with Humayan on the worth of the 400D as compared to the 350D. The 400D has a sensor dust cleaning function, something which is absent in the other Canon models. While the 2Mp extra isn't much of an increase it does allow more area for cropping and ultimately finer detail.
A $15 blower or camel hair brush once a week across the glass on the sensor would solve that.
I don't know how good the EOS-400D is with battery power (not really a problem if you're using the AC adapter), but, I'll assume the ultra-sonic dust cleaning mechanism uses a bit of power whenever it is used.
In addition, I don't like how the LCD shot-settings preview has been removed and integrated into the new 2.5" LCD preview screen. This means that you either stick your eye into the viewfinder to check your settings, or, view them on the big LCD screen, which, again, I would imagine uses a lot more power than the shot-settings preview display. Having said that, I primarily use the viewfinder's readout.
I will still stick by the worth of an L-series lens over a stock lens.
Regards,
Humayun
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolite
I disagree with Humayan on the worth of the 400D as compared to the 350D. The 400D has a sensor dust cleaning function, something which is absent in the other Canon models. While the 2Mp extra isn't much of an increase it does allow more area for cropping and ultimately finer detail.
I just got the Sigma 17-70mm, on the recommendation of Terry Lovejoy. Chris (33South) got the lens also.
I haven't had a chance to give it a great workout yet, but from the shots I have taken, I like it a lot. And at AU$450 it's a steal.
But, if you can afford it, you may as well buy the best the first time, and get the L series (17-40 etc).
Mike, I have been reading the reviews on the Sigma 17-70mm and it seems excellent. Can you tell me where you can get if for $450? I thought is sold for around $599 here in OZ.
p.s. also have just been reading the review on the 400D. Mucn of a muchness to the 350D, so have just put a bid for a 350D body on e-bay which will save me $500 for a better lens as people have suggested.
Add another $550 or so, on the savings, and you can get yourself the knockout Canon EF 200mm F/2.8L lens.
You won't be displeased.
Regards,
Humayun
Quote:
Originally Posted by John K
p.s. also have just been reading the review on the 400D. Mucn of a muchness to the 350D, so have just put a bid for a 350D body on e-bay which will save me $500 for a better lens as people have suggested.
Add another $550 or so, on the savings, and you can get yourself the knockout Canon EF 200mm F/2.8L lens.
You won't be displeased.
Regards,
Humayun
hey I have one of those, I bought a GP lens for normal use a 18-200mm Sigma lens, I am very happy with its performance and i did realise its limitations when I bought it, but it gave me more options and bang for bucks, so I put the extra bucks into what matters - the F2.8L 200mm lens!
