- :
- 2003 Subaru WRX Wagon, 2000 Miata
just some crazy thunderstorm brewing in Toronto over the weekend... kinda ruined my girlfriend's graduation day.... bleh
Any photographers in here?
- Thread starter ChopstickHero
- Start date
just some crazy thunderstorm brewing in Toronto over the weekend... kinda ruined my girlfriend's graduation day.... bleh
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
Rome04 said:
LOL..after I bring back my Rx7
Well i have done some research and defiantly think i would be better off with a 20D. I have 2 items that i am currently looking both 20D bodies only. i would have to buy the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM lens. One body is $620 (refurb by canon) and the other $700 (3-4k clicks). Have any of you ever purchased a refurb? any thoughts on doing so? i think i will wait until i see a deal like before with the body, lens, and vertical grip for $800. something comparable to this deal.
- :
- 2003 Subaru WRX Wagon, 2000 Miata
LEXi73 said:
I have never bought refurb, but i know friends who have and they say it is like new. the only thing is that the warranty does not last a year on those, usually only 90days or so. you may want to see if you can purchase any extended warranty plans through a 3rd party.
Honestly, if your budget allows, get a better lens than the EF-S 18-55. It's a beginner lens that most people quickly outgrow. For me, it was limiting the shots that i wanted to take, so i eventually sold it for a EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8. But if you are using the lens for casual shots, then it'll do just fine.
yeah the refurbs from adomrama are like new, I got mine used and its like a 9/10 and I am much happier with it than the xt
I agree on that lens its really not that good, but for the price you cant really expect much either I guess.
have you looked on photography-on-the.net ? I saw a few 20D's on there lately thats where I got mine
I agree on that lens its really not that good, but for the price you cant really expect much either I guess.
have you looked on photography-on-the.net ? I saw a few 20D's on there lately thats where I got mine
i will like to upgrade sometime but the 17-55 IS f/2.8 carries a hefty price tag. Looks like a great lens that creates some nice looking shots. the background blur to focus on the main subject is amazing on this lens! I would really like to step up sometime but just cant justify spending that amount right now.
LEXi73 said:
look down toward the bottom in the marketplace, you may have to register to see it I dont remember now
here is the link http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14&order=desc
tekkie said:
My Nikon is refurbished and it was like new. I did purchase an extended warranty but I don't really think I'll need it.
I would really try and get a Canon lens. Ken Rockwell explains this well on his website. He says that Canon and Nikon are Lens makers that make bodies, too. Not the other way around. Both Nikon and Canon make very high end, very high quality glass for industry, but rarely will they also be the image capture device. Like Nikon makes lenses for microprocessor light-lithography machines. The required precision in the optics is orders of magnitude greater then in and D-SLR camera. The point is, Nikon and Canon make very good lenses.
Also, while we've mentioned outgrowing the cheapest lens Canon makes, most prosumer and all professional lenses will outlast a body. Technology changes too fast for a lens to wear out before a body is replaced. You will never loose on an investment in good glass.
If I was buying the 20D tomorrow I would get the 18-85 f/4 IS. You get an 35mm equivalent range of 27-127 which is great. You also get IS and USM which is really great. B&H Price is $500.
Alot of the sigma / tamron lens are better made, better value and better IQ than the canons, nikons I dont know about. Yes Canon makes great lenses but if you compare the same style of lens to the same price you can generally get something better from a 3rd party.
That lens your talking about is a 17-85 F4 - 5.6 I would not buy that if its going to be my only lens if you plan to take photos inside its just to slow imo.
the tamron 17-50 is 2.8 all the way through, it has less distance obviously but its also sharper, and if your using 2.8 you dont need IS for 50mm imo
That lens your talking about is a 17-85 F4 - 5.6 I would not buy that if its going to be my only lens if you plan to take photos inside its just to slow imo.
the tamron 17-50 is 2.8 all the way through, it has less distance obviously but its also sharper, and if your using 2.8 you dont need IS for 50mm imo
tekkie said:
Proof or links to substantiate that statement?
I wouldn't say 'alot' - Sigma and Tamron make 2-3 worthwhile lenses. The rest aren't worth buying. Canon's low end lenses aren't anything special, either.
Compare Canon's line up versus Sigma and Tamron, you'll find that Canon is easily superior to the third party lenses. I've owned both Tamron and Sigma lenses and have no desire to ever buy one again. Once you own an L lens, there's no substitute.
tekkie said:
To extend the logic of my previous post about Canon and Nikon being lens makers at their core, when Canon or Nikon make a lens they are making it for their own body, and vice versa. Tamron makes a 17-50 f/2.8 lens which will work, with only minor adjustments, on a Nikon, Canon, 4/3rds-system, Sony, etc. There have to be compromises in design which limit the performance of the lens.
I will grant you that at time the optical performance of 3rd-party lenses can be close or equal to that of Canon, Nikon, et al, but durability with probably be limited.
I wish I had first-hand knowledge to share with you, but I only have the two Nikon lenses which have performed flawlessly.
So I attempted to recreate a technique made popular by the famous flikr-ist _rebekka (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/435321706/in/set-72057594112345061/)
I'm not sure I succeeded, but it was fun trying. I was first trying to emulate that floating, weightless look but it looked boring on the LCD.
I started doing karate kicks and stuff. My favorite image so far is this one. Its not goofy like the others, but not meant to be any sort of message either. I just like it...
I'm not sure I succeeded, but it was fun trying. I was first trying to emulate that floating, weightless look but it looked boring on the LCD.
I started doing karate kicks and stuff. My favorite image so far is this one. Its not goofy like the others, but not meant to be any sort of message either. I just like it...
gr? said:
well yeah obviously L lenses are better in most cases but they are also more $$$
Sigma makes more than 3 worthwhile lenses, you have the bigma, the 30, the 17-70, 10-20, 70-300, 70-200 2.8 to just name a few, are they better than L NO but if you compare them against the canon ones that are the same design they are cheaper and offer the same or better IQ. Compare teh number of lenses that sigma makes vs what canon makes and I think their stakes are pretty good. Of course if you want the best IQ your going to go for the L lenses in most cases but the majority of people dont run around with 5 of them in their bags either.
and your right there are alot of bad canon lenses, and some of them are $$$ like the 16-35L which seems to be a big waste of money from alot of the info I have read on it
or the 85L which is very very marginally better than the 85 1.8 which is what 1/3 the cost of it
dont get me wrong canon makes great lenses for the most part my point is that you dont NEED to buy a canon one when you can get one for a fraction of the cost that will suit your needs
NVP5White said:So I attempted to recreate a technique made popular by the famous flikr-ist _rebekka (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/435321706/in/set-72057594112345061/)
I'm not sure I succeeded, but it was fun trying. I was first trying to emulate that floating, weightless look but it looked boring on the LCD.
I started doing karate kicks and stuff. My favorite image so far is this one. Its not goofy like the others, but not meant to be any sort of message either. I just like it...
I think it would look much better with more fill flash, I find the shadows around the eye, nose, and ear distracting
but you did a much better job than i would have
