Upgrading to the EOS 350D. Advice needed

[Chalk Downlanders]

Hi
I'm Upgrading to the EOS 350D. It comes with a 18-55 lense, which is bog standard. I was looking in addition to this lense to get the USM 90-300 and a new style 60mm macro.

Q. I was told that the old style macro 100mm (film) is the same as the 60mm (digital) true or false? Why if false?

Q. Is the 90-300 lense a good investment or is there a better lense for about the same money?

Thanks
Kev

[matt_xyz]

To answer your first question, the focal length of lenses on the 350D has to be multiplied by 1.6 to compare with old 35mm lenses. So a 60mm lens has a focal length of 96mm when on the 350D. It is therefore roughly equivalent to a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.

I can't answer your 2nd question I'm afraid.

Matt

[MalcolmX]

im my ho the best lens is the 70-200 l glass i use the 100mm macro on my digital camera and my film camera ,also used it on my 10d and 30d and i always found it excellent

[Tamworth Weather]

Just a quick note on lenses. I have the 350D and use the Canon USM II lenses 28-80mm and 75-300mm from my EOS 10

I have found that with both lenses the image quality seems to not be as good as it was with film. I thought it may be down to a problem with my 350D, but a friend at work also has the same lenses and encounters the same problems. To describe it, it looks like a cross between poor focussing and movement.

I have since tested the 350D with the 18-55mm lens supplied with the body (not mine unfortunately) and the results are markedly better.

My advice would be to make sure the lens is digital compatible or made specifically for digital cameras.

[ianj]

Hi Kev,

I use the CAnon EF-S 60mm macro for photographing moths and some of the larger insects. The only problem is that because of the short-ish focal length, you need to get pretty close to your subject which can be a difficult at times for some butterflies, dragonflies, etc. Other than that, the image quality is superb and the internal focusing is very fast. You might consider looking at the more expensive Sigma 105mm f2.8 EXDG macro or the Canon EF100 f2.8 macro. I have used both and they both excellent for macro photography, and you don't need to get so close to the subject.
Also, I was very disappointed with the Canon EF 90-300mm lens. It was my first telephoto, which I used with my original 300D, and soon sold it, as it it couldn't give me the image quality I was after. I would be tempted to save for a bit and get one of Canon's L series lenses. Mind you, once you go to 'L', you don't look back!
cheers
Ian

[carlj]

Kev, can't comment on any aspect of the Canon, except that the 400D is coming out soon - a 10mp replacement for the 350D. Better first camera, or lowered bargain bucket price for the 350D on release?

[digi]

Originally Posted by carlj

Kev, can't comment on any aspect of the Canon, except that the 400D is coming out soon - a 10mp replacement for the 350D. Better first camera, or lowered bargain bucket price for the 350D on release?

And if he waits long enough there will be a 12mp 450D and he will get the 400D at a bargain price.

[Fourwings]

The 18-55mm kit lens makes a great paper weight, you might say its not the best.

Save some money and buy body only, I wish I had, my kit lens has never been back on my 20D since I got the Sigma 150 macro!

[digi]

Originally Posted by Fourwings

The 18-55mm kit lens makes a great paper weight, you might say its not the best.

Save some money and buy body only, I wish I had, my kit lens has never been back on my 20D since I got the Sigma 150 macro!

I have to disagree here, at f8 the two kit lenses I have are sharp, wide open they are not that good but worth having for the extra £30-40.

It also gives the camera a greater resale value when you want to upgrade.

Digi

[Jon]

Originally Posted by digi

And if he waits long enough there will be a 12mp 450D and he will get the 400D at a bargain price.

I am with you there Digi, pixels sell cameras yet most people buy them to take pictures. It is illogical to get hung up on the number of pixels. More pixels sell more cameras, simpleb but just how many pixels do we need? In simple terms I can get superb images from my little old IXUs 3.2 mega pixel upto and including A4. My Lanscape shots on the database were taken with this little camera.

The 300D and the 20D are 6 and 8 million; without going into a physics lecture it would suffice to say that this is enough for the vast majority of photographers, even for those who may occasionally contemplate posters...... Andy Rouse has produced posters from the 3 mega pixel D30 (not to be confused with the 30D) 'nuff said!! Jon