akszaksz
New Member
i guess so, we can use the EF lens, but take note of our 1.6x crop factor.
btw, correct me if i'm wrong.
Official Canon 500D user Thread (part 2)
- Thread starter speedtest99
- Start date
i guess so, we can use the EF lens, but take note of our 1.6x crop factor.
btw, correct me if i'm wrong.
ShootallSkaters
New Member
Instead of going for the 17-55 canon lens which costs a bomb, 500D users might want to take a look at the 17-50mm tamron lens, Wayyy cheaper.
To get a VC or the-non VC version is up to you, I shoot my shots at fast shutter speeds to avoid unwanted hand shakes.
To get a VC or the-non VC version is up to you, I shoot my shots at fast shutter speeds to avoid unwanted hand shakes.
dingaroo
New Member
Not sure, but you have to check your own SD card. The one I got was a Class 4, it is ok for single shots, not when you go into sports shoot mode. Bought a 16GB class 6 for $77.
:EDIT: But again, I switch my picture size to small when using shooting continuous frames so as to reduce the lag time writing between shots.
Last edited:
dingaroo
New Member
Yes, the 500D can use both EF & EF-S lenses.
BTW, the EF-S lenses are for the crop bodies, like ours, where as the EF series are for the full frame. This is what i gathered from the information from the various discussions here.
ShaneKua
Senior Member
the non VC tamron is significantly sharper than the VC which is soft in the corners strangely. IMHO, either the non-VC Tamron or if got moolah get 17-55 for even more sharpness, colour tone, and super fast focusing. No sense in paying 300+ more for the VC tamron and lose out in sharpness.Instead of going for the 17-55 canon lens which costs a bomb, 500D users might want to take a look at the 17-50mm tamron lens, Wayyy cheaper.
To get a VC or the-non VC version is up to you, I shoot my shots at fast shutter speeds to avoid unwanted hand shakes.
thank you for your reply.
anyway, regarding the 1.6x crop factor, does it really affect the picture so much that it makes no sense to get the lens alr? If so, is there any other fisheye lens out there that is best suited for the 500D?
dingaroo
New Member
I can only advise for you to try the lens, take a few shots, and see the results for yourself. Not everyone's eye is the same.
takengo2003
Deregistered
can someone tell me is our 500D warranty also covers functional checking and general cleaning if required?
Going oversea soon, so need to be sure my 500D is nothing wrong and clean.
Going oversea soon, so need to be sure my 500D is nothing wrong and clean.
ShaneKua
Senior Member
Yes, as long as still under warranty it definitely is. In fact some around CS recommend sending for a 'farewell Customer Service' check on any equipment. Kind of a tradition but it certainly has its merits. Nothing like getting a fully serviced and calibrated piece before warranty ends. 
takengo2003
Deregistered
that is good, but is it chargeable?
ShaneKua
Senior Member
No. AS long as your warranty is valid, and there are no signs that you visibly abused your unit. Just say you have dust and need it clean. And by the way just check the cailbration of the lens will ya? Yup they will do it.
If not under warranty at least $60 depending on equipment
If not under warranty at least $60 depending on equipment
takengo2003
Deregistered
hi, saw your sig, you have a 17-55mm IS F2.8, i actually looking for this lens, very good review, but how do you find it comparing with your 18-55mm?
is the image quality really better, slightly better or very much better?
ShaneKua
Senior Member
Hi,
The image quality is significantly better (although not the difference between PnS to DSLR).
Noticeably, colour contrast and sharpness all round corners are markly improved. You should be able to tell via LCD screen.
It is however very much heavier (as heavy as my other 3 lens put together), bigger and burns a big hole in your wallet.
If price is an issue, you dont need IS or lightning fast AF, i would recommend the Tamron 17-50 over this. You can get it 600+ new or 500 2nd hand. It is a much more value proposition, almost as good IQ as the 17-55. And also f2.8
Having a f2.8 lens really changes your style. Youll capture more shots indoors as you can freeze indoor shots at higher shutter speeds than your kit.
Ask yourself what your style is like. If you do indoor, limited light work 17-55 or the tammy are good lens. If you want more range, the 15-85 has almost as good IQ as the 17-55, and quite equal to the tamron 17-50, but f3.5-5.6 like your kit lens.
Hope it helps!
takengo2003
Deregistered
thanks shanekua for the explaination, I will get a lens for travelling purposes, so mostly outdoor, I also have a 50mm F1.8, wonder will the 50mm good for indoor shots if I use it to shoot food in restaurant during my trip. My 18-200mm is enought to cover most range, but I might invest more on 17-55 if the picture quality really improves alot. really puzzle.
ShaneKua
Senior Member
Well I think the 50mms focal requires you to be quite a bit further from your subject to shoot.
THe 17-55mm is not macro capable so you cannot do close up shots if thats what youre thinking. Its min focal distance is 0.43m so thats how far you must be away for your subject. In this regard the kit lens 18-55 IS is better because it focuses at 0.23m away from the subject.
Other than that the 17-55 is alot more versatile in a restaurant than a 50mm for food and guest shots.
You have to try and see for yourself, but from what ive seen. the 17-50 VC is a drop from the non VC, which is very sad, because the non VC was soo darn good.
You pay $600+ for the non VC and 300 more for VC but with a drop in IQ.
If you dont need Image Stabilisation, get the 17-50 Non VC. If you do . well what i did was get the 17-55 but its quite quite hefty in price indeed.
Well if you got a 70-200 f4L IS youre prob well off enough to shoot for the 17-55 no?
Well I think the 50mms focal requires you to be quite a bit further from your subject to shoot.
THe 17-55mm is not macro capable so you cannot do close up shots if thats what youre thinking. Its min focal distance is 0.43m so thats how far you must be away for your subject. In this regard the kit lens 18-55 IS is better because it focuses at 0.23m away from the subject.
Other than that the 17-55 is alot more versatile in a restaurant than a 50mm for food and guest shots.
You have to try and see for yourself, but from what ive seen. the 17-50 VC is a drop from the non VC, which is very sad, because the non VC was soo darn good.
You pay $600+ for the non VC and 300 more for VC but with a drop in IQ.
If you dont need Image Stabilisation, get the 17-50 Non VC. If you do . well what i did was get the 17-55 but its quite quite hefty in price indeed.
Well if you got a 70-200 f4L IS youre prob well off enough to shoot for the 17-55 no?
erm.. not really very well off...but at least manage to save it for that lens haha...i just want to know is really worth off to spend the extra 600...
akszaksz
New Member
it really depends each individual point of views.
for e.g if you using an EF lens of 17-40 F2.8L on a crop body, the 17mm will become 17 x 1.6 = 27.2mm.
however if you're using a FF body, 17mm is 17mm.
Advise: you should rent & test out the lens you're interested in, before you buy anything.
ShaneKua
Senior Member
:thumbsup:
