TFinal and anyone else...

[TipMOver]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-13-06 AT 03:56PM (MST)[p]I'm getting ready to dive into the DSLR game after using my S2IS and other point and shoots over the years. This is going to be my "do everything" camera. Wildlife shots, scenics and whatever else.

I have been looking at the new Digital Rebel XT (aka EOS-350D). It has recieved good reviews from what I have read. Should I be looking at anything else?

Should I buy the kit that comes with a Canon 18-55 mm lens for everyday use, or just buy the body and buy a different lense for everyday use.

Where should I start for a tele lense for wildlife shot? Is a Canon
EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens a good choice? I'm not sure how these lenses translate into actual zoom power, but I sure would like a bit more than my 10x or 12x on point n' shoots.

Thanks in advance!
Dave

 

[TFinalshot]

Lost of people use canons. I do not and can not recomend them as I have very limited experence with them. I know people who do shoot the canon, but only with their pro level stuff.

I can recomend only nikon as that's what I use and that's what i would buy again if given the option today.

as per the lens factors. multply the the longest number, i.e., 135mm by a factor of 1.4 and do the same with the lower end of the zoom and that will give you the digial lens length for canons. The nikons have a 1.5x factor so a 300mm lens would be effectively a 450. a 300 mm lens is about 6x lens given that 50mm is "normal" or how a human sees the world. 50mm is considerd an normal lens any thing longer is a telephoto. . . Thats why guys like to use smaller than 50mm to photograph their kills, they get close to the subject and the subject, the deer, looks bigger than life.

If you want true sizes, you shoot as close to 50 as you can, anything smaller will exagerate human features, like the nose, anthing longer like a 135mm will compress the face and make the nose look smaller and it also will make the back ground look closer than it really is. It' get really exagerated with 400 and 500mm lenses. a 135mm lens would be good for a chess game but not for most wildlife. I often shoot at 400 or 500mm and almost never less than 200!

"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).

 

[Saskman]

I have never used the 350D but it should provide you with excellent photos. It has basically the same sensor as the Canon 20D and 30D. I am currently using the 30D. Canon digital SLR's have the reputation of having very low noise at high ISO which is excellent for taking wildlife photos in low light. The crop factor on these non pro Canon cameras is actually 1.6X not 1.4X as Tfinalshot stated. This can be a plus for wildlife photography but not as good for landscape. You will need to buy a fairly wide angle lens to get good landscape shots. I have never purchased a camera with a kit lens as it usually seems that they are fairly cheap in build quality. If you are on a tighter budget it would be a good idea to go with the 350D rather than the 20D or 30D and then spend the extra money you save on a better quality lens or lenses. You can always upgrade the body later but good glass will last you for a very long time.

CLB

 

[TipMOver]

Thanks for the input Tony and Cam. I appreciate it.

Cam,

Which lens(es) do you use for your setup. Another Canon buddy suggested a Canon EF USM L 100-400mm lens but I may have to do this in a couple stages. That lens is about $1300. I know the deal with great glass. Both my wife and I have Swaro EL binos and spotting scopes. I dont want to have to buy twice, but I also need to find the level of glass that makes for satisfactory personal viewing and occasional sharing with friends, as I wont be trying to sell or publish my photos. Thanks again for the input, both of you.

Dave

 

[TipMOver]

And another question. Is image stabilizing mandatory? I think I already know the answer to this one!!

 

[TFinalshot]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-06 AT 10:35AM (MST)[p]that's a perfect lens. I think IS and VR are really the only way to now a days. Save up for it and you will be much better off in the long run with an IS lens.

Sorry fore mis identification of the sensor size on the canon. Sask is right, they are 1.6 and the Mark II's are 1.3!

Take care, good luck!


"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).

 

[Saskman]

I agree with TFinalshot that image stabilization is the way to go. I take quite a few shots where I just can't use a tripod or monopod and the IS allows me to still get sharp photos. I use the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS lens and get good shots with it. The push pull zoom takes some getting used to but I don't mind it now. I also use the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens. It is a little short wildlife photos but it is great for sports and I even like it quite a bit for portraits. It is a little on the pricey side as well. I would really like one of the longer f/2.8 lenses Canon offers but just can't seem to find the huge dollars it requires to buy one of them. The 28-135 IS lens you mentioned is a decent price and would make a decent walk around, all purpose lens for taking family snapshots and such but does not have the quality of the L lenses and would be quite short for wildlife photos. For sharing everyday photos on the internet and printing out the usual sized 4X6 prints it would do fine.

Cam