 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / January 2007400d, and "walk around" lenses
Hi all, About to buy a 400d, and want to pair it with a good "walk around" lense as my first lense purchase, given it will have to last me a while. Was hoping I could get some info & opinions: The best price I have found in Australia for a 400d body only is $1098.90 from printercartridges.com.au/camerasdirect.com.au. God-awful website, but seems to be an OK company from a couple of opinions I've found on the net. Does anyone know of a cheaper price for a 400d body in Australia from a reputable seller? As mentioned above, I want to buy a good "walk around" lense first. I'm currently weighing up between the EF 28-135mm IS, EF-S 17-85mm IS, and EF 24-105mm IS L. Obviously the 24-105mm L is the best lense, but it's also double the price of the other two. Does anyone have any opinions on these three, taking into account the price difference. Going on from the above, the best prices I've found for these lenses from reputable sellers are: EF 28-135mm IS: ~$580 incl shipping from bhphoto.com (USA based) EF-S 17-85mm IS: ~$715 incl shipping from bhphoto.com (USA based) EF 24-105mm IS L: $1,557.85 incl shipping from dirtcheapcameras.com.au The EF 24-105mm IS L is cheaper "on paper" from bhphoto.com, but once you include GST (as it's over $1000) & ~$50 customs processing fee, and take into into account that I'm going overseas early Feb so I can get a GST refund if I buy it in Australia, DCC works out cheaper (~$1470 real cost from bhphoto.com vs ~$1405 real cost from DCC). Does anyone know of anywhere I could source any of these cheaper, from a reputable seller? Thanks - really appreciate any comments / suggestions / info.  SignatureCheers, Matt > About to buy a 400d, and want to pair it with a good "walk around" lense as > my first lense purchase, given it will have to last me a while. Was hoping I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > EF-S 17-85mm IS: ~$715 incl shipping from bhphoto.com (USA based) > EF 24-105mm IS L: $1,557.85 incl shipping from dirtcheapcameras.com.au OK here's my opinion. Forget the 17-85. Which leaves three options. 1. Buy a 400D with the standard 18-55 and the 28-135 for about the same money. 2. Buy the 28-135, and a wide angle lens, or maybe save up for the 10-22, or 17-40 zooms. 3. Buy the 24-105L, it's better, faster and you can crop the 105 picture for similar performance to the 135 uncropped anyway. But it's expensive, and not very wide angle. MrT. > OK here's my opinion. Forget the 17-85. Which leaves three options. Why do you say forget the 17-85mm? There's a lot of varying opinions about it on the net, but on balance it seems to be rated as having slightly better optics than the 28-135mm, and 17-85mm is probably a more useful range. That being said, it's EF-S, which is the main thing that makes me hesitant - I can't ever see myself spending $5000 on a 5D, but I'm sure FF sensors will eventually move down to more consumer level cameras. > 1. Buy a 400D with the standard 18-55 and the 28-135 for about the same > money. Valid perhaps, but isn't the 18-55 kit lense complete junk? > 2. Buy the 28-135, and a wide angle lens, or maybe save up for the 10-22, > or > 17-40 zooms. This is pretty much what I'd do if I decide on the 28-135, but I'm not sure I'd buy a wide angle lenses straight away - wouldn't be able to afford a decent one from the prices / reviews I'd read. > 3. Buy the 24-105L, it's better, faster and you can crop the 105 picture > for > similar performance to the 135 uncropped anyway. But it's expensive, and > not > very wide angle. If it was a little cheaper I'd go for this, but at more than double the 28-135... :-S Really annoyed I wasn't buying in December, could've gotten the $500 cash back by buying a 24-105L & 400d body - definately would have gone for that. Thanks for your opinions. SignatureCheers, Matt > Why do you say forget the 17-85mm? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > $5000 on a 5D, but I'm sure FF sensors will eventually move down to more > consumer level cameras. Well that's one reason. The other is that you can buy both the 18-55 and 28-135 for the same price, giving you a better range. But mainly the fact that the 17-85 is complete crap at the 17mm end anyway. No better than the 18-55. > Valid perhaps, but isn't the 18-55 kit lense complete junk? Junk maybe, but not that much worse than the other two IMO. > > 2. Buy the 28-135, and a wide angle lens, or maybe save up for the 10-22, > > or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd buy a wide angle lenses straight away - wouldn't be able to afford a > decent one from the prices / reviews I'd read. Sure you would, if you can afford the 24-105 :-) > If it was a little cheaper I'd go for this, but at more than double the > 28-135... :-S Really annoyed I wasn't buying in December, could've gotten > the $500 cash back by buying a 24-105L & 400d body - definately would have > gone for that. Yes, that was a good deal. On past performance you could wait until next Xmas for them to do it again :-) How come you didn't buy last month though, if you knew about the cash back? MrT. >> There's a lot of varying opinions about it on the net, but on balance it >> seems to be rated as having slightly better optics than the 28-135mm, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that the 17-85 is complete crap at the 17mm end anyway. No better than the > 18-55. Fair enough :-) >> Valid perhaps, but isn't the 18-55 kit lense complete junk? > > Junk maybe, but not that much worse than the other two IMO. Not much worse than the 28-135mm as well? >> > 2. Buy the 28-135, and a wide angle lens, or maybe save up for the > 10-22, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sure you would, if you can afford the 24-105 :-) By my quick calculations the 28-135mm IS and either the 10-22mm or 17-40mm L would be about $300 more than the 24-105mm L. With the 24-105 I'm already right up the top of what I can justify... I don't think I can bring myself to spend another $300 on top of that :-S Looking at slightly cheaper wide angles, the Sigma 10-20mm gets some great reviews and is cheaper, but there seems to be significant quality control issues with them (i.e. good copies and bad copies). >> If it was a little cheaper I'd go for this, but at more than double the >> 28-135... :-S Really annoyed I wasn't buying in December, could've gotten [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How come you didn't buy last month though, if you knew about the cash > back? I found out about the cashback in Jan, after I started looking :-( SignatureCheers, Matt > >> Valid perhaps, but isn't the 18-55 kit lense complete junk? > > > > Junk maybe, but not that much worse than the other two IMO. > > Not much worse than the 28-135mm as well? Well I've had this argument with others right here just recently. There is not enough in it for me to worry about. If you want an actual improvement go for the L series zoom, or better still, any of the primes. > By my quick calculations the 28-135mm IS and either the 10-22mm or 17-40mm L > would be about $300 more than the 24-105mm L. With the 24-105 I'm already > right up the top of what I can justify... I don't think I can bring myself > to spend another $300 on top of that :-S Fair enough, but I always think if your spending maybe $1500 ($2500 with camera), whats another couple of hundred when you can get 20 or 30 years use out of them. However you haven't mentioned a fixed wide angle. A fixed 20mm will supplement the 28-135 nicely IMO without breaking your budget. Add in the cheap 50mm f1.8 if you want something fast and sharp in the normal range, and you've got a reasonable kit within your budget. You could always add the 10-22 later if you still want it. > I found out about the cashback in Jan, after I started looking :-( Pity. Good luck with your choice. MrT. >> Not much worse than the 28-135mm as well? > > Well I've had this argument with others right here just recently. There is > not enough in it for me to worry about. If you want an actual improvement > go > for the L series zoom, or better still, any of the primes. Fair enough - I'll try and find that argument :-) > Fair enough, but I always think if your spending maybe $1500 ($2500 with > camera), whats another couple of hundred when you can get 20 or 30 years > use > out of them. That is true - I'm certainly trying to think about the lenses in the context of lasting me a long time, which is the main reason I like the idea of the 24-105 IS L despite it being very excessive for my skills & usage right now. Still, there has to be some sort limit :-) > However you haven't mentioned a fixed wide angle. A fixed 20mm will > supplement the 28-135 nicely IMO without breaking your budget. Add in the > cheap 50mm f1.8 if you want something fast and sharp in the normal range, > and you've got a reasonable kit within your budget. You could always add > the > 10-22 later if you still want it. Just had a look at the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - the Sigma 10-20mm I mentioned in my last post is similarly priced and seems to have better optics based on the opinions I found (and despite possible quality control issues). Any direct experience with either of these two lenses? >> I found out about the cashback in Jan, after I started looking :-( > > Pity. Good luck with your choice. Thanks - and I really appreciate your comments & advice. SignatureCheers, Matt > Just had a look at the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - the Sigma 10-20mm I mentioned in > my last post is similarly priced and seems to have better optics based on > the opinions I found (and despite possible quality control issues). Any > direct experience with either of these two lenses? Unfortunately no. However I'd be *extremely* surprised if the Sigma 10-20 outperforms the Canon 20mm f2.8. Maybe you mean the Sigma 20mm f1.8? Worth considering if you need the extra stop or so. Obviously it depends on the model in question, and as you have mentioned, the specific lens considering quality control issues in some cases. I do have the Canon 24mm f2.8 and have no objections with it's performance at all. *FAR* better than my 17-85 at the same focal length. I think I will go look for those tests! There is one other thing to be careful of though. Some Sigma lenses have had autofocus issues with Canon camera's, and Canon have a habit of changing things in there new models which cause problems with other manufacturers lenses etc. Remember not all tests are created equal though. I'm happy to accept results from places like Popular Photography, but some of the on-line personal reviews are dubious to say the least. MrT. > Unfortunately no. However I'd be *extremely* surprised if the Sigma 10-20 > outperforms the Canon 20mm f2.8. I would be too at 20mm, but the reviews & opinions I'm reading probably take into account the extra width and flexibility of having 10-20mm range. > Maybe you mean the Sigma 20mm f1.8? Nope, definately meant the 10-20mm > I do have the Canon 24mm f2.8 and have no objections with it's performance > at all. *FAR* better than my 17-85 at the same focal length. I think I > will > go look for those tests! Post any interesting ones you find... > There is one other thing to be careful of though. > Some Sigma lenses have had autofocus issues with Canon camera's, and Canon > have a habit of changing things in there new models which cause problems > with other manufacturers lenses etc. A little concerned about this, but if I bought this lens I would make sure it was from a local store so I can test it and/or return if necessary. > Remember not all tests are created equal though. I'm happy to accept > results > from places like Popular Photography, but some of the on-line personal > reviews are dubious to say the least. Typical internet; got to filter the information from the noise :-) I'm basing what I'm posting off stuff like the fredmiranda.com review section - while these are a collection of user ratings & opinions rather than a professional review, the fredmiranda.com users seem pretty clued up with lots of professionals. Data from fredmiranda.com review section: Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - build quality: 8.33/10 - price: 7.93/10 - overall: 7.3/10 - AU price ~$700 Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - build quality: 8.51/10 - price: 7.32/10 - overall 9/10 - AU price ~$1149 Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM - build quality: 8.99/10 - price: 8.87/10 - overall 8.4/10 - AU price ~$633 So while the 10-22mm rates better, it's almost double the price of the Sigma. Likewise, the 20mm is similarly priced, but not as highly rated. Main negative comment about the Sigma seems to be that it has a poor lens cap - not exactly life threatening - and that there are some dodgy copies out there - more of an issue. Popular Photography seems to think it's OK, not a lot of detail though - http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2258/lens-test-sigma-10-20mm-f4-56-ex-dc-hs m-af-specs-page2.html Hmm, sounds like I'm advocating this lens now... not intending that, just spelling out the basis for considering it as a viable alternative :-) SignatureCheers, Matt > > However I'd be *extremely* surprised if the Sigma 10-20 > > outperforms the Canon 20mm f2.8. > > I would be too at 20mm, but the reviews & opinions I'm reading probably take > into account the extra width and flexibility of having 10-20mm range. But that's not what you said. Of course it's more flexible! *You* get to choose flexibility or performance, it's your money. > > There is one other thing to be careful of though. > > Some Sigma lenses have had autofocus issues with Canon camera's, and Canon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A little concerned about this, but if I bought this lens I would make sure > it was from a local store so I can test it and/or return if necessary. No the problem usually arises in a few years time when you buy a new Canon body and find the lens no longer works properly with it. > Data from fredmiranda.com review section: > Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - build quality: 8.33/10 - price: 7.93/10 - overall: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM - build quality: 8.99/10 - price: 8.87/10 - > overall 8.4/10 - AU price ~$633 Interesting prices. The Canons can be had for far less from the USA, but the Sigma seems to be much dearer ie $499USD + shipping or over $700AUD. (vs $399USD for the Canon 20mm) So obviously the Australian agents aren't making such a killing on Sigma. Yes it's useful, but the numbers can only be compared between similar lenses. ie. a zoom with a rating of 8 may be vastly inferior optically to a prime with the same rating. You have decide how much performance you are willing to trade for convenience, (and I know my opinions differ from many others :-) > So while the 10-22mm rates better, it's almost double the price of the > Sigma. Likewise, the 20mm is similarly priced, but not as highly rated. But actually has better performance at 20mm, that's my point. If you really need 10mm, then it's a whole different ball game. In that case the Sigma looks like a good buy for the money, and it's pointless even considering the 24-105L. MrT. Firstly, apologies, I must admit I forgot about this post! >> I would be too at 20mm, but the reviews & opinions I'm reading probably > take >> into account the extra width and flexibility of having 10-20mm range. > > But that's not what you said. Of course it's more flexible! *You* get to > choose flexibility or performance, it's your money. Fair call - I guess it depends on what is most important to the buyer. >> A little concerned about this, but if I bought this lens I would make >> sure >> it was from a local store so I can test it and/or return if necessary. > > No the problem usually arises in a few years time when you buy a new Canon > body and find the lens no longer works properly with it. I assume you are referring to Sigma lenses having no guarantee of future compatibility, not buying a lens that only works on 1.6x crop factor bodies? Either way, fair call again... > Interesting prices. The Canons can be had for far less from the USA, but > the > Sigma seems to be much dearer ie $499USD + shipping or over $700AUD. (vs > $399USD for the Canon 20mm) So obviously the Australian agents aren't > making > such a killing on Sigma. So over here it could be a bargain, or we could just be paying less for a still-crap lens :-) > Yes it's useful, but the numbers can only be compared between similar > lenses. ie. a zoom with a rating of 8 may be vastly inferior optically to > a > prime with the same rating. You have decide how much performance you are > willing to trade for convenience, (and I know my opinions differ from many > others :-) Personally I'd choose flexibility (to a point) - but maybe this will change with time. I assume you stray towards quality? In the end I bought the 24-105mm f/4L IS - expensive, and overkill for me now, but hopefully a lens I will keep, use and be happy with for many years into the future (thus justifying the price). It's /massive/ on a 400d body though :-) Thanks again for the interesting discussion / advice. SignatureCheers, Matt >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Thanks - really appreciate any comments / suggestions / info. It's LENS for chrissake!! > It's LENS for chrissake!! I've always used "lens" up until about a week ago, when I somehow convinced myself "lense" was correct... and now I can't remember how/why I came to that conclusion. Just re-Googled it, and you are of course correct. Sorry :-) Have a look at http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/ which is located in North Sydney. Its grey market but usually that hasn't created too much problems for most in terms of warranties for Canon goods. Prices are pretty good compared to Ebay where majority of items are shipped from HK with overpriced postage costs. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Thanks - really appreciate any comments / suggestions / info. > Have a look at http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/ which is located in > North Sydney. > Its grey market but usually that hasn't created too much problems for most > in terms of warranties for Canon goods. Prices are pretty good compared to > Ebay where majority of items are shipped from HK with overpriced postage > costs. Thanks, slightly cheaper than camerasdirect.com.au. I'm a little unsure about buying grey market. I've read a couple of posts on Australian forums where people are saying Canon will honour grey market DSLR bodies as long as they are purchased from an Australia store that has a retail shop front, but when I rang Canon earlier they told me grey market DSLR bodies are not covered by warranty at all :-S SignatureCheers, Matt > I'm a little unsure about buying grey market. I've read a couple of posts on > Australian forums where people are saying Canon will honour grey market DSLR > bodies as long as they are purchased from an Australia store that has a > retail shop front, but when I rang Canon earlier they told me grey market > DSLR bodies are not covered by warranty at all :-S Of course they are, just not by the Australian agents. :-) MrT. | > I'm a little unsure about buying grey market. I've read a couple of posts | on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | | MrT. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keyco de=2113&fcategoryid=214&modelid=7246 "Canon International Warranty The Limited Warranty set forth below is given by Canon COMPANY listed below with respect to Canon Photographic Products produced in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom or New Zealand. The Limited International Warranty is only effective upon presentation of the warranty card and proof of purchase. This Canon equipment is warranted against defective materials or workmanship for (1) year from the date of the original purchase and is limited to repair, adjustment and/or replacement of defective parts. Equipment covered by this Warranty will be repaired by Canon International Warranty Members located in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand WITHOUT CHARGE. (List of Canon International Warranty Members included with the equipment.) Equipment covereed by this Warranty will be repaired by Canon International Warranty Members WITHOUT CHARGE, except for insurance, transportation and handling charges. (See list of Canon International Warranty Members included with the equipment.)" > "Canon International Warranty > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > handling charges. (See list of Canon International Warranty Members > included with the equipment.)" Which may be fine and dandy *IF* the item actually comes with an international warranty of course. Not all grey market items do. MrT. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.