I've succumbed to the dark force

kini62

That is Canon.

After a somewhat disappointing try with the Pentax K10 and after a year and a half with my E-300, I just got my 30D. :barb

A friend lent me a couple of lenses, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 to try out with the cam as I only have the kit lens.

First impressions are that I think the K10 has a better interface and is easier to make adjustments to ISO and WB.

I miss the built in SR (IS).

But the focus of the 30D is SOOO much faster in low light. In fact I'm glad I ahd FF issues with the Pentax. If I would've kept it the low light focus would've driven me bonkers in about 2 weeks.

So no more not being able to find a lens or want one that is not available in XXX mount.

So missing the IS, I'm torn between the 17-55IS and the 24-105IS.

The 24-105 is more to my liking in focal length, but is much too slow to use in my house without flash, even at ISO 1600-3200.

The 17-55 being one stop faster will get me usable 1600 or 800 (1/10-1/20)- my house is dark at night. But then again with IS the 24-105 might work too.

I'm sooooooooo confused. They're about the same price. One is an L and actually comes with a lens hood and will work on ALL Canon cameras.

So better range VS wider aperture and I hear (read) that the 17-55 is sharper at 2.8 than the 24-105 is at 4.0. True?

Oh, and the high ISO is really nice. ISO 3200 is more than usable if there's not a lot of shadow and at 1600 it's nothing short of amazing. After noiseware it looks better than ISO 400 or even 200 from my E-300 in the same conditions.

Thanks for any advice on the lenses or camera. Should've just gone with the 30D to start with. Live and learn I guess.

Gene

RedSox

For shooting low light in your house, you might want to consider invest in a wide angle low light prime. How do you like the 50 1.4 your friend lent you? If it is too long you can always buy a wider one.

If you shoot people indoor, IS won't help freez motion blur. If you shoot static objects, you can always use a tripod if you hate to use flash gun.

Eric

marlinspike

I didn't even realize the K10D's were out yet. What didn't you like about it? How was it at high ISO's?

Andy

kini62 wrote:

The 24-105 is more to my liking in focal length, but is much too slow to use in my house without flash, even at ISO 1600-3200.

It is?
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613/1/54222616/Large
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large

limbik

marlinspike wrote:

What didn't you like about it? How was it at high ISO's?

Yes, inquiring minds want to know.

kini62

Thanks for the links. In my house at night we're talking 1.4-1.8 and 1/30-1/100 depending on location.

I think I'm going to try the 24-105 because I like the focal length for how is shoot.

I like the 85/1.8 better than the 50/1.4. I like the range better.

What I didn't like about the K10. Basically both bodies I tried had front focusing issues of varying degrees with both my lenses (Sig 24-70DG Macro) and Pentax 77 Limited 1.8.

I lked the ergos better than the 30D, build felt almost identical. A well built camera. I liked the ISO modes and it was really easy to tweak the WB,since I like to shoot jpegs.

The built in SR (IS) worked well, although it took about a second to settle in so I did get some blurry shots. What's nice is it made my 77/1.8 stabelized.

Aside from the FF. What I didn't like:

Low light AF was agonizingly slow. Apparently this hasn't been fixed from previous Pentax cameras. It would get close then it would take a second or more (usually at least 2) to think about it. You could hear the lens going "thunk, thunk, thunk" as it tried to lock. It did this even with the IR AF assist from the external flash.

The 30D aquires and locks focus amazingly quick even in very dark conditions.

The K10 tended to underexpose by quite a bit.

I tried the 30D in similar conditions and the exposure was much better.

Also the need to tweak the WB on the 30D is not needed as it's pretty good on the presets and in auto.

High ISO noise on the 30D is better. In the shadow areas both have noise of course, but the K10 is blotchier and does exhibit some banding. Not so with the 30D.

In well exposed areas ISO 1600 is equal to 800-1000 on the K10. Not dramatic but better.

I just made an 8x10 print of a crop of a image taken at 3200 (30D of course) 85/1.8 at 1.8 1/100

And at normal viewing distance it's great

Andy wrote:

It is?
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613/1/54222616/Large
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large

limbik

Thanks Gene, I think I'm going to go take my 30D out for a night on the town this evening... I've been neglecting the poor thing.

It is good to hear that the build is quality, if only they could tweak some of the low light shortcomings a bit they would have a real killer on their hands.

Tommyboy

kini62 wrote:

I'm sooooooooo confused. They're about the same price. One is an L and actually comes with a lens hood and will work on ALL Canon cameras.

I don't own either lens, but I do own a 17-85 IS and a 10-22. Here's what I think:

With the 24-105, you've got a 38.5 - 168 mm lens. It's not wide enough. Others may disagree with me, but it's a clunky focal-length range. What are you going to get that's wider? The 10-22? And what about the other end? A 70-210? A 75-300? A 200 f/2.8? It does have L glass and wider compatibility. How apparent the optical superiority is, I can't say.

On the other hand, with the 17-55, you've got a 27-88 mm (35mm equivelant). This is wide enough for some nice limited-space indoor stuff, landscapes, etc. In addition, it's a nice stopping point for a 70-210, name your glass, f/stop, and IS configuration. Canon's got at least four different lenses.

Then there's the speed. All of my lenses are 3.5-4.5 max variable aperature (expcept for my 85 1.8). TOO slow.

I vote for the 17-55. Having EF-S lenses becomes a problem if you plan to drop $2,500 on a 5D body.

kini62

Thanks for the info. But based on how I shoot the range of the 24-105 on the 30D is better for me. I ordered it today.

I always have the kit and a flash if I need to go wider indoors, or outdoors as well.

Thanks
Gene

Tommyboy wrote:

I don't own either lens, but I do own a 17-85 IS and a 10-22. Here's what I think:

With the 24-105, you've got a 38.5 - 168 mm lens. It's not wide enough. Others may disagree with me, but it's a clunky focal-length range. What are you going to get that's wider? The 10-22? And what about the other end? A 70-210? A 75-300? A 200 f/2.8? It does have L glass and wider compatibility. How apparent the optical superiority is, I can't say.

On the other hand, with the 17-55, you've got a 27-88 mm (35mm equivelant). This is wide enough for some nice limited-space indoor stuff, landscapes, etc. In addition, it's a nice stopping point for a 70-210, name your glass, f/stop, and IS configuration. Canon's got at least four different lenses.

Then there's the speed. All of my lenses are 3.5-4.5 max variable aperature (expcept for my 85 1.8). TOO slow.

I vote for the 17-55. Having EF-S lenses becomes a problem if you plan to drop $2,500 on a 5D body.

Tommyboy

I'm certain you won't regret it. Enjoy the lens!

TM

kini62 wrote:

Thanks for the info. But based on how I shoot the range of the 24-105 on the 30D is better for me. I ordered it today.

I always have the kit and a flash if I need to go wider indoors, or outdoors as well.

Thanks
Gene