Bought a 400D, but.......

[MPowerM3]

Well I really meant that hand held the camera would feel better in his hands with a battery grip.

If your going to shoot that long of lens with a tripod/monopod, def get the collar!

 

[xfloggingkylex]

Doesn't seem to expensive indeed but I wonder besides the F/1.8, is the image quality much better than the kitlens (18-55) at 50mm?

people will argue that the 50mm 1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses canon makes, including L glass. the design of the 50mm prime (for all manufacturers) is very effective and results in a low price, incredibly sharp and fast lens.

I have heard some say that the 1.8 is actually sharper than the 50mm 1.2L that costs more than a grand more. Whether or not I can prove this or if I agree is something I cannot comment on because I haven't see comparisons.

But yes, the 50mm lens is going to be much sharper than the kit lens.

I'm sure someone would be willing to post an example of the kitlens shot at 50mm and say f/8 compared to the prime shot at f/8 to show you. I would personally but I dont have a canon. If my friend comes over before someone else posts a comparison I'll have him do it.

 

[Don Simon]

I would say the 50mm prime will definitely produce a better image than the kit lens at 50mm. To my mind the slow 'kit' lenses of that kind of focal length (and this too applies to all manufacturers) can produce good results but need to be stopped down a couple of apertures to do so; I consider them acceptably sharp at f/8 and beyond. The prime however will probably be acceptably sharp around f/2.8, and beyond that it will be significantly sharper than the kit lens. Apart from sharpness, I suspect the prime is less likely to suffer from various aberrations (because the optical design is simpler) and then there is the question of 'bokeh', a pretty vague quality but which I might describe as "what the out of focus bits look like" (there's a good technical definition for you) . Kit lenses are not usually known for producing especially pleasing 'bokeh'.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I would say the 50mm prime will definitely produce a better image than the kit lens at 50mm. To my mind the slow 'kit' lenses of that kind of focal length (and this too applies to all manufacturers) can produce good results but need to be stopped down a couple of apertures to do so; I consider them acceptably sharp at f/8 and beyond. The prime however will probably be acceptably sharp around f/2.8, and beyond that it will be significantly sharper than the kit lens. Apart from sharpness, I suspect the prime is less likely to suffer from various aberrations (because the optical design is simpler) and then there is the question of 'bokeh', a pretty vague quality but which I might describe as "what the out of focus bits look like" (there's a good technical definition for you) . Kit lenses are not usually known for producing especially pleasing 'bokeh'.

If smooth and pleasing bokeh is what you are looking for, the 1.8 is a very capable lens.

Here is a picture of bokeh from wiki taken with an 85 1.2L

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._with_Bokeh.jpg/800px-Josefina_with_Bokeh.jpg

notice how smooth the background looks and how pleasing it is to your eyes (minus of course the blown out part)

 

[libeco]

Thanks for the replies, for only €94 it's definately a nice lens to have next to the 70-200. Than later I'll probably have to invest in something better than the kitlens for that range to be covered... Oh well, I knew this was going to be an expensive hobby:lmao:

 

[benjikan]

Yesterday I made a huge step for myself by buying the Canon EOS 400D with the 18-55 kitlens, my first dSLR after I used (and will continue using) the Fuji S9500 for half a year. My first impression of the camera is: what a speed compared to the Fuji, suddenly I can take 9 pictures very fast while with the Fuji I had to wait 10 seconds to take a picture!

When in the shop I told the salesman I wanted a zoomlens with the camera and told him I saw the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM he was very surprised and told me it was better to use such a lens on a 30D otherwise it was like putting a body on a lens instead of a lens on a body. Now I wonder, is this such a strange combination? They didn't have that lens, but they did have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L, which I held in my hand on a 400D body and although the balance went to the front I didn't find it that hard to hold. The salesman also added that it would be a problem on a tripod, is this true? Because while searching here on TPF I saw several topics with people having a 400D and wanted to buy such a lens. I'm still considering either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and waiting for your replies.

Another thing I noticed is after a day of some shooting I saw there was something like a piece of dust or a hair visible through the viewfinder, but it doesn't show up on the pictures, so it's not on the lens or sensor, but it is annoyingly visible, anybody has an idea how to remove it from where it is (mirror? vewfinder?)?

THNX in advance!

The Sigma and the Canon lenses are rather heavy and being an ex-Architectural designer, I can understand the sales persons concern about mounting the body on to the tripod. You know the old Physics 101 formula Fmax=0. Well that is the reason we have tri-pod collars on these lenses to get Fmax to equal zero and be balanced. When mounted to a tripod directly via the camera the weight of the lens will apply very high stresses to the camera tripod mount of your camera. Being that it is not a metal body, there is a remote possibility that with a jolt you could damage the body. In either case with either the 70-200 f4.0 or f2.8 I would not mount the camera body on to the tripod. I would mount via the collar.