Professional grade camera?

[Snick]

29,900 at fotofile in Bangkok, with lens. I little more at Power Buy

[batman4ever]

(Snick @ Apr. 26 2010,17:02) 29,900 at fotofile in Bangkok, with lens. I little more at Power Buy

thanx Snick..

almost same same then,but then i prefer to get it back home here

still about 40 days left until i have to take an decission so no hurry yet

[manarak]

Shot some more stunning pix yesterday.
It is really easy, just point & shoot and BANG! crystal clear result.

Thank you Canon.

[manarak]

posting here some info I found about the L-lenses:

What is an EF-S lens?

From essentially the introduction of the EOS camera system in 1987 through to 2003 Canon standardized on a single lens mount system for all of their SLR cameras - the EF (electrofocus) lens mount. So throughout this time there was no possible source of confusion, since all EF lenses made by Canon and other lensmakers will physically fit all Canon EOS cameras.

However, in 2003 Canon introduced a new digital camera, the consumer-oriented EOS 300D/Digital Rebel/Kiss Digital camera, which sported a new lens mount design dubbed EF-S. All consumer to midrange digital EOS cameras released since have been both EF and EF-S compatible. For reasons explained in a moment, no film camera has ever been EF-S compatible.

So it€™s important to remember that digital camera bodies with EF-S lens mounts are totally compatible with all regular EF lenses. However an EF-S lens can fit only EF-S compatible cameras and no others. (unless the lens is altered - see the section on hacking below).

EF-S bodies have small mirror boxes - roughly 2/3 the size of a regular EOS camera (also known as a 1.6x cropping factor) - because they use image sensors which are smaller in area than 35mm film. They, and APS cameras which similarly used small imaging areas, are thus often called subframe cameras. Cameras which use 35mm film or which use large sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film are commonly called full frame cameras these days.

EF-S cameras thus support lenses with a shorter back focus distance than EF lenses, because the mirror swings further back. This is where the €œS€ comes from - EF-S lenses have shorter back focus distances. (ie: the back part of the lens can get physically closer to the image sensor since the mirror is smaller) Having a shorter back focus distance allows Canon to produce cheaper wide-angle lenses that work with the smaller image format of a subframe digital SLR, since it€™s optically very challenging to create a wide angle lens with a long back focus distance.

Canon have a small but growing series of EF-S lenses available, ranging from inexpensive kit lenses to very good high-quality lenses with image stabilization. There€™s even a very interesting 60mm macro lens with an EF-S mount. The super wide angle EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM (roughly 16-35mm coverage if it were full frame) is particularly well regarded, as is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM, which is an L lens in all but build quality and name.

The main issue to be concerned about with EF-S is the future value of the lenses. Right now full-frame image sensors are extremely expensive to make, which is why nearly all digital SLRs out there have image sensors smaller than that of a frame of 35mm film. But in the future it€™s likely that prices on such sensors will drop, at which time full-frame digital SLRs will become more affordable and thus EF-S lenses will no longer be of use except on pre-existing cameras. The two questions are - how long will this take and will you be able to get good use of your investment in EF-S lenses before this occurs? The first nobody knows the answer to, and the second can only be answered by you. For the time being it seems likely that it€™ll be some years before affordable full-frame sensors are ubiquitous, so EF-S lenses aren€™t necessarily a bad idea, assuming you aren€™t planning on upgrading to full-frame as soon as you can.

What is a Canon L-series lens and why is it a big deal?

Canon sell a number of lenses in a special series they refer to as L for €œluxury.€ These are their most expensive and highest-quality lenses, and are readily identifiable by the red stripe painted around the end of the barrel.

L series lenses offer higher optical quality than their non-L equivalents, and have an important technical aspect in common. At least one element in every L lens is either made of fluorite crystal rather than glass, is a ground aspheric lens element (not a moulded/replicated aspheric lens as used in less expensive lenses) or is made from ultra-low dispersion glass. Most L series lenses are also sturdily built - many are encased in metal barrels and are weatherproofed - and most are very fast lenses for their focal lengths. Nearly all telephoto L series lenses are also off-white rather than black.

These lenses are, therefore, marketed as professional camera lenses and are usually priced out of the range of most consumers. They can be used to take great photographs, but the cost, weight and size of these lenses are the tradeoffs.

Of course, a lens doesn€™t have to be an L series lens to take good pictures. Many EOS lenses offer excellent optical quality - they just don€™t need and thus don€™t have exotic fluorite lens elements and so on. Many of Canon€™s prime lenses in the 35mm to 135mm range fit in this category - see below. And some recent EF-S lenses offer near-L image quality but lack the red ring and the tough build quality of contemporary L series lenses.

Note also that the presence of a red ring around the end of a lens barrel only indicates an L series lens if it€™s actually made by Canon. Some other makers happily paint red stripes around the end of their lenses too, but this in no way guarantees that the lens meets the quality standard of a Canon L lens.

I also read in test reports that the lens I have is at best mediocre (= this means average).

But I guess if I was interested in a better lens to shoot top-quality pics, I would have chosen the 7D and not 550D.

[manarak]

I wonder how the Tamron 18-270 lens compares with the Canon 18-135 I have now?

[pacman]

Stick with your Canon lens. It's all you will ever need.

Plus the Tamron 18-270 lens weighs 560 grams. You will come to understand my aversion to lugging around weight once you have a bag of lenses.

Here's a link to dpreview's review of the Tamron -

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-6p3_vc_n15/

[manarak]

interesting.
it seems to be a tad better than the canon 18-200 lens.
they say the same about the Canon 18-135.

I think I'll stick to my current equipment, although I could have liked a Tamron. They give it even better rating for picture quality than the Canons.

The 500g are an argument, but then that's just 200g more than what I got now and the Tamron would be another all-purpose lens, as the 18-135 is, so I would only carry around that one lens.
And the Tamron isn't more bulky, for double the zoom.
Maybe I can sell the 18-135 Canon and get a second hand Tamron for just a couple of bucks more.

I also read more about the lens stuff, and I feel confident with the choices I made.
The 550D is exactly what I need, and it is a very good camera, but not full frame.
I need exactly one all-purpose lens and that's it.
Fitted with the lens, the 550D fits exactly into my "gay pouch" (looks like a handbag for men).


And as far as I know, there are no all-purpose superzoom L lenses out there.
So if one was to fully take advantage of L lenses, it would not only suppose carrying around a set of lenses, but also investing in a full frame camera.
Plus, the big zoom L lenses are really expensive!

So, I'll happily stick to my prosumer 500D :-)

Except maybe looking for one of those Tamron super-zooms to test it out. It would make the whole even more "all purpose" with just one lens.

[pacman]

Just a comment on super-zooms. Just what on earth are you planning to photograph?

Because unless you are into sports or birdwatching, there really isn't a lot you can do with them.

Far better & far more useful is a small wide angle zoom.

Go to a camera shop & put either the Sigma 10-20mm or the Tamron 10-24mm on your 550D. Tokina also make a 12-24mm that has a fixed aperture of f4.

You will not appreciate just how convenient this type of lens is until you try it on your camera.

Then you can decide whether the super-zoom is going to give you more picture opportunities.

I know what I would buy.

[manarak]

basically anything that's far away.

besides the purpose for which I bought the camera (for which the 18-135 is fine), I'm also a tourist and a family guy.

Examples:
- my son skiing or playing tennis
- golf (for this it is imperative to be at a fair distance for not disturbing the player with the clicks, beeps and servomotor noises)
- boats/ships on the sea
- the naked neighbor across the street
- that elusive ladyboy dancing on the lit podium in soi croc when you are yourself still on bang na
...


But I need anyway *some* zoom to be flexible, and I don't want to carry lenses around.
So a 10-24 is not really an option.

[pacman]

Your argument all sounds so perfect that I can't argue with you.

However, I will point out that night photos taken on at f6.3 (being the largest possible aperture at 270mm on the Tamron) will result in you shooting at very high ISO (something your 550D can handle) but you will still have pictures heavy with noise. Alternatively your shutter speed will be so slow as to render your pics a blur.

This is why people pay big money for fast zooms. f2.8 will give you 3 stops of exposure to play with but better than that, do your zooming in post-production. That is where your 18 megapixels will earn their keep.

With your excellent sensor, an acceptable photo can be taken from just a tiny part of the frame. And you have that ability now. You don't even need to buy Photoshop or Lightbox. Though they open up the possibilities even more.

As to your contention that the 10-24 as "not an option", do you ever find yourself taking pictures inside? Would you like to be able to shoot people sitting at the table? Or in a lift? Or anywhere you don't have room?

Until you put such a lens on your 550D, you won't understand how much it can transform your picture taking.

Your graduation to using a photographer's camera is very recent, I will give you time before I ask again about the usefulness of a wide angle zoom.

- the naked neighbor across the street

Now ya talkin'...        I love you Manarak...          

[manarak]

You're right of course!
I *love* wideangle.

And your explanations about speed/noise are spot on.

I've played before with an almost serious camera - I had an Olympus OM707.
And then I liked the Minolta Dimage 7i a lot, it was very flexible.

[manarak]

some pix...

[manarak]

an illustration of why I need zoom on an all-purpose lens... capturing an avalanche

[manarak]

Boring but beautiful

[manarak]

I might add the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM to my set for these low-light situations :-9