Canon EOS 30D

[Anonym]

I just received it today! I'm so excited.

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d1.jpg

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d2.jpg

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d3.jpg

I currently only have one lens, which is the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro. I didn't buy the kit lens, as I've heard some poor reviews on its quality control. The macro lens suited more of my needs, anyway. Unfortunately, as soon as I got the camera I realized my need/want for a more wide-angle lens, so I'll have to get one, along with a telephoto zoom, sometime in the near future. Then I'll have to get the 580EX, and then...

I think you get the idea. I'm really excited about this purchase. I've wanted a the 10D/20D for some time now, but never put the cash toward it. Thankfully, with an employee purchase plan, I was able to get the camera for just over $1,000. Perhaps now I'll post more photographs, since I've finally gotten a decent camera.

[q]

Can you touch-up the first photograph, and maybe enlarge it to 1280x800? I want to use it as a wallpaper.

[VP-]

I just received it today! I'm so excited.

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d1.jpg

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d2.jpg

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d3.jpg

I currently only have one lens, which is the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro. I didn't buy the kit lens, as I've heard some poor reviews on its quality control. The macro lens suited more of my needs, anyway. Unfortunately, as soon as I got the camera I realized my need/want for a more wide-angle lens, so I'll have to get one, along with a telephoto zoom, sometime in the near future. Then I'll have to get the 580EX, and then...

I think you get the idea. I'm really excited about this purchase. I've wanted a the 10D/20D for some time now, but never put the cash toward it. Thankfully, with an employee purchase plan, I was able to get the camera for just over $1,000. Perhaps now I'll post more photographs, since I've finally gotten a decent camera.

Anonym, come to ohio sometime, I'll let you use some of my lenses and we can go shooting somewhere.

30D tis a sweet setup, I shoulda waited for prices to drop but I wanted to switch to digital ASAP.

[Anonym]

Can you touch-up the first photograph, and maybe enlarge it to 1280x800? I want to use it as a wallpaper.

Here's my touch-up. I hope it's similar to what you want.
http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d1b.jpg

Here's the original file to do with as you please, especially if I totally was off-base on the touch-up above.
http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/IMG_0818.JPG

Thanks, VP-. Quick question for you: which lens would you (or anyone else; I'm open to comments) choose?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002Y5WXE/ref=ord_cart_shr/103-7630278-9573442?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance&n=502394
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000ZL2J8/ref=ord_cart_shr/103-7630278-9573442?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance&n=502394

I like the Canon for the wide angle, but I like the Tamron for the aperture.

[VP-]

first, buy from B&H or Adorama, better return policies and such, also better prices, in the search box for BH type PSMAR it hit enter, will give you discount prices on some items.

Ok now for the lenses, www.fredmiranda.com for reviews on each lens, also there is a Sigma 10-22.

Ok, which would I pick, that 17-35 is going to be a 27-56 on your 30D. 27 isn't really super wide angle if that's the effect you want. The 20ish-55ish focal length (see canons F2.8Ls and the Tamron + Sigmas in this area) are big time primary "bread and butter lenses" good for tons of applications and opportunities. That being said there is a new Tamron 17-50 F2.8 coming out soon, the Sigma 18-50 F2.8, and canons own 17-55 F2.8 IS. So if you want a general use lens, look into the 17-35 range before crop, if you want to say super wide angle, look into the Sigma and Canon 10-20 somethings.

Best yet, check into some wideangle primes if you want the best Wide angle quality, as even Canons L wide zooms are not superb.

Did that help?

I am waiting on the Tamron 17-50 personally.

[senor-turkey-lurkey]

welcome to the club. Check your money at the door

[Anonym]

Y'know what? I saw "DI", and for some reason thought it was a digital lens. I didn't bother to read that it wasn't. I feel silly now.

Oh, and the links to Amazon.com weren't meaning that I would therefore buy it from that company. I generally check Amazon.com for all online shopping, and then visit other sites once I see what they charge, and what the reviews state.

[VP-]

welcome to the club. Check your money at the door

lol no shit.

20D - 1,100
85 F1.8 - 340
50 F1.4 - 320
150 F2.8 - 550
400 F5.6 - 399
EM-140 RingLight - 150
Enjoying and learning something you love - priceless.

Think of it that way guys!


good man shopping around anonym, was my input of any help?

[Anonym]

Yes, it was. I had forgotten about primes until you brought them up. I think I'm going to take that route over a zoom. Perhaps that will come later. First I'm going to get the 135mm 2.8 Softfocus, then a 24mm 2.8, then the 580EX, and then maybe a wide-angle zoom, but a monopod might come into play before then.

[VP-]

Yes, it was. I had forgotten about primes until you brought them up. I think I'm going to take that route over a zoom. Perhaps that will come later. First I'm going to get the 135mm 2.8 Softfocus, then a 24mm 2.8, then the 580EX, and then maybe a wide-angle zoom, but a monopod might come into play before then.

135 f2.8 is a very nice lens, and softfocus can do some shit that is not replicateable in photoshop, at least not to the same "pureness".

Check into a Sigma 20 F1.8, that 28 is going to be around 50mm for you remember. Or even a Sigma or Canon 15 F2.8, although the Sigma is regarded as being the better lens.

[Anonym]

Yeah, I know about the conversion factor, but didn't want to spend any greater amounts of money for a wider angle. That may come later.

One thing I think you missed: I'm not wanting to get the 28, I'm wanting to get the 24 from Canon. I haven't really thought that heavily about Sigma, as I'm not entirely sold on the quality of the lenses. Now that I see it's only around $100 difference between the two, I might go with the Sigma anyway. The 15 from Sigma is a bit too expensive for me at the moment. I have to purchase a few more things, and don't want to break the bank on wide-angles at the moment. I did okay with a 28mm for most of my needs in the past on my 35mm, so I wasn't really feeling the need to go really wide on my digital. However, since I'm going with 35mm lenses, it looks like I'll probably have to do so someday. I definitely don't want to go with the digitally optimized lenses, as I think Canon is going to move over into full-frame from now on (at least, I hope so).

My timetable is something like this:

135 ---- 24/15 ---- 580EX ------------------------------------------ Wide angle

I just don't know how much wide-angle stuff will be needed in what I want to do, so I don't think I'll be getting something really wide anytime soon. It's why I was considering the low price 24mm: I wanted something a little wider than my 50mm macro, but not something so wide that it would break the bank. My personal preference would be to stay in Canon's line, which is why I haven't gone into the Sigma area. However, the price is pretty good; and if the quality is equal or greater, it would appear wise to consider them.

[VP-]

Yeah, I know about the conversion factor, but didn't want to spend any greater amounts of money for a wider angle. That may come later.

One thing I think you missed: I'm not wanting to get the 28, I'm wanting to get the 24 from Canon. I haven't really thought that heavily about Sigma, as I'm not entirely sold on the quality of the lenses. Now that I see it's only around $100 difference between the two, I might go with the Sigma anyway. The 15 from Sigma is a bit too expensive for me at the moment. I have to purchase a few more things, and don't want to break the bank on wide-angles at the moment. I did okay with a 28mm for most of my needs in the past on my 35mm, so I wasn't really feeling the need to go really wide on my digital. However, since I'm going with 35mm lenses, it looks like I'll probably have to do so someday. I definitely don't want to go with the digitally optimized lenses, as I think Canon is going to move over into full-frame from now on (at least, I hope so).

My timetable is something like this:

135 ---- 24/15 ---- 580EX ------------------------------------------ Wide angle

I just don't know how much wide-angle stuff will be needed in what I want to do, so I don't think I'll be getting something really wide anytime soon. It's why I was considering the low price 24mm: I wanted something a little wider than my 50mm macro, but not something so wide that it would break the bank. My personal preference would be to stay in Canon's line, which is why I haven't gone into the Sigma area. However, the price is pretty good; and if the quality is equal or greater, it would appear wise to consider them.

I see what you mean, you want a "normal" angle lens after the crop, because all of those you are looking at crop out to around 50mm.

Canon isn't going fullframe. 1.6X is incredibly useful and incredibly marketable. They wouldn't have invested so much into EF-S lenses only to have consumer full frames come out within a couple years. Think of it like diamonds, if it weren't for de'beers (sp?) control of the entire diamon industry they would be worthless carbon. Sure Canon will eventually be able to produce an affordable FF but why would they take sales away from their 1 series, and also why would they lower the prestige factor? I would say Canon will go one step lower than the 5D for a full frame possibly around the $1,750 dollar range, but nothing more, it would encroach on both 5D and 1D sales, and also hurt their high volume low profit 1.6x crop cameras.

And also because a top level exec at Canon last week just said "1.6x is here to stay" ;)

[Anonym]

Oh, I didn't hear about the decision to stay with 1.6x. I was hoping Canon was going to go right into full-frame, since they don't really have as wide array of EF-S lenses as I would like to see. Bummer. I still want to stick with 35mm lenses for now. At the moment, most of the EF-S lenses are too far into the specialty lens area for me to be able to afford them, heh.

And yes, I would rather go with a more normal lens (after the conversion) for the moment.

[matt-]

As much as I dislike EF-S lenses, the EF-S 10-22 is an amazing wide angle. The glass is on par with some of the L counterparts.

[Ricky`]

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d2.jpg
Could you resize this photo to 1024x768 please? I really like this photo.

[Anonym]

http://www.flagmandesign.com/files/eos30d2b.jpg

[Ricky`]

Thanks a lot. All of your photo's are good by the way. :D

[Anonym]

Sorry that I'm bumping this topic, but I figured it would be better to do so than to start a new one.

I've been thinking about the EF-S line a bit more, and am a little confused. All EF lenses have a crop factor when placed on a 1.6x DSLR. For the sake of explaining my confusion, I'll mention that therefore all people who use 35mm lenses must multiply their lenses by 1.6 to get the "actual" wide and telephoto millimeter amounts of their lenses when on a 1.6x camera.

What I don't understand is why the decision was made to continue this conversion problem with the EF-S lenses. The EF-S 10-22mm isn't 10-22mm, but rather a 19-35mm (or something along those lines) 35mm equivalent. Why do this? Why make a new line of lenses, and then print the wrong focal length on the product?

[senor-turkey-lurkey]

because if there wasn't the 1.6x they would still be normal, and if you use them on a normal camera they are normal... I really don't know what I'm talking about but since things are backwards compatible the lens is still really what it says and your stupid camera is what's broken. However there is the issue that most digital SLRS have the 1.6 crop thus making the lenses have the wrong info.

But I don't even know what the EF-S line is all about other than they are out of my price range so I'm just writing useless words.

BLAH

if we're talking optics the lens is still technically the focal length that they write on the lens so that's why.

[Anonym]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-S

[VP-]

on a full frame sensor it does NOT make a normal picture, it is heavily vignetted, EF-S lenses feature a reduced image circle to cut down on cost and size.

[Anonym]

I understand all that. I'm just not sure why they left the conversion factor on the packaging, instead of just writing the correct amount on it. It can only be used on certain lenses, anyway. On top of that, if it was possible to put the lens on an EF-only camera, it wouldn't be what was written on the box. It makes no sense.

[VP-]

I understand all that. I'm just not sure why they left the conversion factor on the packaging, instead of just writing the correct amount on it. It can only be used on certain lenses, anyway. On top of that, if it was possible to put the lens on an EF-only camera, it wouldn't be what was written on the box. It makes no sense.

Well in reality it is still a 10-22mm lens for example, it is just CROPPED to simulate the FOV for a 16-35 lens. Printing the box as a 16-35 would be incorrect as it is not a 16-35 lens by any means. That and DOF, distortion, etc still apply as a true 16 acts differently than a 10mm on 1.6x.

It does some logical though to maybe put the conversion on the box in parenthesis or something though.

[Anonym]

The more I think about it, the more I just still don't understand why EF-S was even made. These lenses appear to do absolutely nothing different from normal lenses, aside from giving the 1.6x users a wider angle. One would think that making these lenses exclusive would mean that there would be some benefit to them (aside from the aforementioned wide-angle). Yet that appears to be it. So why make them exclusive? If this is just a 10-22mm that gets cropped anyway, why not just release the 10-22 without the EF-S designation? It would end up being the exact same lens, wouldn't it? And by doing that, everyone would be able to have the wide angle!

I understand what you mean with the 10-22mm acting differently from its cropped counterpart, but I don't think I can really agree with that being enough reason to leave 10-22mm on the box. These are EF-S lenses. Just being in that class makes them different. They're made for only specific cameras. Maybe it's just me, but putting the actual cropped measurements on the box for these cropped sensor camera lenses, which can only be used on those cropped sensor cameras, would make far better sense than putting measurements on the boxes that don't actually match what the user will see. We all know some lenses have better sharpness than the rest (L series), or focus faster and quieter than the rest (USM), or can balance out shake (IS). All those are notified on the box. Yet this camera displays in large numbers something that the camera on which it is placed doesn't support!

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this, so please don't confuse my comments here to mean that I'm dwelling on this. It's just something I'm pondering over, and something about which I'd like to understand better. I get the general idea for making the lens, but it just seems to have been made as a novelty, or a gimmick.