[kb100]

Originally Posted by ramki067

Thanks very much souljah!
I've asked to bring a 2GB memory card, about rechargeable battery i shall inform him.Thanks.My friend said the Canon cameras sourced from US doesn't have an international warranty, will authorized dealers here service those cameras if any problem arises?

They will.... For money!!

You will have to pay for parts and labour - but that's the same even if you buy locally in grey.

[Sks_Biker]

Originally Posted by kb100

Okies... URGENT ADVICE PLS -- What do you all think I should start of with

Sigma 17-70
or
Tamron 17-50

I am terribly confused. (am in this state almost permanently lately)

I'd vote for Tamron 17-50 if IQ is the concern. Excellent lens for the price.

[kvish]

Originally Posted by kb100

Okies... URGENT ADVICE PLS -- What do you all think I should start of with

Sigma 17-70
or
Tamron 17-50

I am terribly confused. (am in this state almost permanently lately)

17-50 is constant f2.8 and highly regarded. Looks like the tamron is smaller and lighter too.
17-70 has more range and a very usable 1:2.3 macro. If versatility is what you are looking for, this gets the vote. On the other hand if you plan getting dedicated macro lenses , then 17-50 is what you should look at. You cant go wrong with either of them.

[navin]

Originally Posted by s0uljah

Nikon Coolpix P50
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3

This will be bought overseas and for a student. Someone whose primary use will be birds, scenery and probably social gatherings, sports.

Budget including expanded memory(2gb?) and maybe additional battery or charger would be around 12k INR.

The TZ3 has a longer range but for birds anything short of 400mm is a short. For a bit more ($350) you can get the Panny FZ18 and I think Oly also makes something that is equally long (400mm+) and economical (about $350).

Originally Posted by jaibir

Also, if NiMH, what rating?

min 2500mAH

Originally Posted by kb100

Sigma 17-70 or
Tamron 17-50
I am terribly confused.

I thought you had decided on the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS combo?

remember 3rd part lenses have very poor resale value. do you need f/2.8?

[gkrishn]

Another vote for tamron 17-50...

Originally Posted by kb100

Okies... URGENT ADVICE PLS -- What do you all think I should start of with

Sigma 17-70
or
Tamron 17-50

I am terribly confused. (am in this state almost permanently lately)

[kb100]

Originally Posted by navin

I thought you had decided on the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS combo?

remember 3rd part lenses have very poor resale value. do you need f/2.8?

Navin

I looked up a few snaps - honestly found the colour, contrast and most importantly the 'Sharpness' lacking big time in the 18-55 IS kit lens

My methodology - I must have viewed over 500 snaps shot by each of these lenses in various forums and threads - So that averages out everything - ability/equipment/and baises ! Found that the average mean of the IQ to be much, much, much higher with the other two lenses,
and someone sold me on avg lens/good body vs good lens/ good body logic.


Some of the shots with a Kenko Extension tube were brilliant! So much so that with them the Sigma 17-70 probably loses the edge it had in the macro dept.

Canon Digital Photography Forums - View Single Post - -= Archive Tamron 17-50 2.8


End of the day I like the IQ these lenses provided - So perhaps at a cost of 12 & 15k - its bearable.
Canon Digital Photography Forums - View Single Post - -= Archive Tamron 17-50 2.8


The downside - wonder if the lack of IS is going to be a huge handicap?

HERE is a GOOD databank of images and actual user opinions of various lenses - Please note that this is a Canon forum
-=Lens Sample Images Archive=- (work in progress) - Canon Digital Photography Forums

[tsk1979]

Navin,
the 17-50 is a great lens, not just for aperture, but for image quality also.
Photozone.de is a great site for lens reviews, and they have most of the lenses professionally tested.

[navin]

Originally Posted by kb100

I looked up a few snaps - honestly found the colour, contrast and most importantly the 'Sharpness' lacking big time in the 18-55 IS kit lens

My methodology - I must have viewed over 500 snaps shot by each of these lenses

The downside - wonder if the lack of IS is going to be a huge handicap?

If your eyes are that demanding I think the 17-55/2.8 IS is on order. The sample I got is tack sharp and focuses very fast on my 40D. I am not a fan of 3rd party lenses especially sitting here in India where service is spotty.

KB, think of it this way. The venerable 5D today costs $2K. Good FF lenses like the 24-70, 24-105IS, 70-200IS all cost around $1.5K each. So a 2 lens FF (like the 24-70 + 70-200) kit even using the 5D will cost you $5k+.

Nikon's only FF costs about $5K. only if Nikon introduces a FF body under 2k will Canon do the same. I dont see this happening any time soon (despite rumours of 50D and 5D MkII) - like in the next 2-3 years.

If you are planing to upgrade to FF the frist chance you see how the the 350/400D with a BGE3 ifts in your hand. If it works for you get that body and use the money saved for lenses. Remeber bodies loose value faster than lenses (even EF-S lenses will retain value better than bodies).

[navin]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Navin,
the 17-50 is a great lens, not just for aperture, but for image quality also.
Photozone.de is a great site for lens reviews, and they have most of the lenses professionally tested.

I fear sample to sample variance in 3rd party lenses. Both Sigma and Tamron have disappointed me. However I have a friend who uses Nikon and has had great results using Tokina ATX-Pro lenses.

[s0uljah]

Originally Posted by navin

The TZ3 has a longer range but for birds anything short of 400mm is a short. For a bit more ($350) you can get the Panny FZ18 and I think Oly also makes something that is equally long (400mm+) and economical (about $350).

Thanks Navin ji.

Budget in fact needs to be in the range of 250$ so I think shooting distances will not be an option in that case.

FZ18 was the first choice. Then slowly worked my way down to the TZ3. Now that also seems a tad pricey.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by navin

If you are planing to upgrade to FF the frist chance you see how the the 350/400D with a BGE3 ifts in your hand. If it works for you get that body and use the money saved for lenses. Remeber bodies loose value faster than lenses (even EF-S lenses will retain value better than bodies).

Navin..I have decided full frame will happen not LESS than five years from now.

I know the attributes of the lenses you mention - and yes I would have to invest in them at some point. But I would rather pick and chose my way over time.

What I need for the moment, is a 'learning kit' of acceptable quality - which gives me the latitude for some ceative freedom, without breaking the bank. I am trying to keep my initial cost down to an acceptable level. I find the contrast/colour/'pop' combination in these lenses - which is one step up from the kit-lens- is over the threshold of what I expect/look for/like - anything lower and my P&S is better. So much so that while I like the pics the Canon 70-300IS USM produces, I am trying to argue with myself if it'll not be more prudent to cut my teeth with the 50-250IS instead - half in cost for just 50mm less on the top plus some slighly inferior optics and IQ. To complicate matters the 70-200 F4L is at the same price! Everyone I know seems to think IS is important for tele+noobie combination. Which will then mean a 2x or a 3x budget. If I have to spend that kind of money, then I want to be SURE of what I, with my ability - or what I would have aquired by then - can get out of the lens.

[redrage]

The Xsi/450D Canon indepth review is out on dpreview!

Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

[navin]

Originally Posted by kb100

Navin..I have decided full frame will happen not LESS than five years from now.

I find the contrast/colour/'pop' combination in these lenses - which is one step up from the kit-lens- is over the threshold of what I expect/look for/like - anything lower and my P&S is better.

So much so that while I like the pics the Canon 70-300IS USM produces, I am trying to argue with myself if it'll not be more prudent to cut my teeth with the 50-250IS instead

- half in cost for just 50mm less on the top plus some slighly inferior optics and IQ. To complicate matters the 70-200 F4L is at the same price! Everyone I know seems to think IS is important for tele+noobie combination.

Will you be happy with the 18-55 IS for 5 years? If you are as progressive a photographer as I think you are the answer is NO. If you want a lens that will last you 5 years think no further than the 17-55 (3rd party lenses are poor cousins with limited resale value, the 17-55 is a keeper - I expect FF camers in 2009-11 will offer the option of using EF-S / DX lenses; why the Nikon D3 does so today).

For the tele, going by your records with the P/S what % of shots do you use the tele for? If it less than 15% and light is good then get the 55-250 or 70-300 (depending on budget). The 70-300 with IS will be more useful than a non IS lens.

Originally Posted by redrage

The Xsi/450D Canon indepth review is out on dpreview!

Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

With the recent discounts on the 40D (upto $200) the 450D is not yet good VFM. It will be once the "new-ness" wears off.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by navin

Will you be happy with the 18-55 IS for 5 years? If you are as progressive a photographer as I think you are the answer is NO. If you want a lens that will last you 5 years think no further than the 17-55 (3rd party lenses are poor cousins with limited resale value, the 17-55 is a keeper - I expect FF camers in 2009-11 will offer the option of using EF-S / DX lenses; why the Nikon D3 does so today).

I agree. I cannot stand the 18-55 even going by the smple shots I've seen - hence the hunt for better lenses like Tamron 17-50 f2.8 etc.

What I meant is that 'I' intent to resist the 'UPGRADITIS' disease for the next five years. So all this will have to last me for 5 yrs at least!

For the tele, going by your records with the P/S what % of shots do you use the tele for? If it less than 15% and light is good then get the 55-250 or 70-300 (depending on budget). The 70-300 with IS will be more useful than a non IS lens.

I now need to compare between a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 24-105L f4 IS USM. The latter seems a brilliant walkaround at the expense of the wide angle. The tele front - I intent to learn with the 70-300 IS (or competetive variants) before I move onto more expensive lenses. The way I assume my usage will develop would be


INDOORS (from Now - to - one year from now) 50% - 25%

OUTDOORS 50% - 35%

MACRO Nil - 15%
(flowers bugs et all)

TELE Nil - 15%
Wildlife, Birds etc

Overlaps Nil - 10%

With the recent discounts on the 40D (upto $200) the 450D is not yet good VFM. It will be once the "new-ness" wears off.

Very true - the US price of a 450 kit with the 18-55IS kit lens is $900 (899 actually) - where as the 40D body is $940 - a difference for just $40. The difference between the 'body alone' variants of the two is just $140.

In India the B&W price of a 450D is 43k - and the 40 D body can be had for about the same price. Guess they have made the decision making easy worldwide!!

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by navin

Will you be happy with the 18-55 IS for 5 years? If you are as progressive a photographer as I think you are the answer is NO. If you want a lens that will last you 5 years think no further than the 17-55 (3rd party lenses are poor cousins with limited resale value, the 17-55 is a keeper - I expect FF camers in 2009-11 will offer the option of using EF-S / DX lenses; why the Nikon D3 does so today).

As long as a lens is giving L like image quality, why bother about resale. For somebody who keeps lenses for 3-4 years, resale is no big deal.
As for FF and EF-S lenses, that is not possible due to 2 reasons
1. Technically, the mirror will hit against the lens due to lens design
2. EF-S lenses are very poor in corners. They are optimized for center 1.6 circle.