i'm considering the EOS 350D for a digital SLR. combined with a 1.4 50mm lens i think i'll be happy with the performance in comparison to my A-1 35mm SLR.
below is my Canon A-1 and 1.4. this camera is perhaps 20 years old and still going strong. and i bought it used for pennies on the dollar back in the '80s.
the 1.4 has been the most amazing lens. my Dad has the same body and a 2.8 50mm and the difference in color and image quality is significant.
<img src="http://marsavius.net/wayot/SLR/a-1.jpg"><ul><li><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/">350D review</a></li></ul>
07-13-2005, 11:31 AM
looks like a nice one too though.
Avoid the 50mm lens on this camera. The lens is okay, but doesn't get sharp until f2.8. That's not the real issue though. The real issue is that the sensor in that camera is a 1.6 crop sensor. It's smaller than the area occupied by film on your old camera. By virtue of the smaller sensor, you pick up some extra magnification (50mm x 1.6). For indoor shooting, you'll find 50mm is annoyingly long. It's great for portrait work on a 1.6x camera.
Ideally, a 30-35mm lens would be the perfect solution. Canon makes a 35mm f2 that's reasonably priced, but it doesn't have the USM motor in it, so focusing is slower and noiser than the 50mm you are considering. Obviously, it's not quite as fast either. And you'll probably need to stop it down to f2.8 before you'll see sharp results. It's fairly inexpensive at $250 or so.
Another alternative I know you don't want to consider is the Canon 35mm f1.4. It's a $1000 lens though. Very nice, and really sharp by f2. It's a large lens though, so between the price, size, and hard to come by factor, it's off the list I'm sure.
Another option is the Sigma 30mm f1.4 mentioned a little further down. This lens is specifically designed for 1.6x cameras. It just came out, and initial reviews are promising. It's expensive (compared to the 50mm you were considering). Street price should be around $450 or so. This would be my first choice.
BTW, the 350D is a great camera. My only advice would be to hold it with a lens attached and make sure you're comfortable with it. I found it too small to handle (my hand just felt cramped, and larger lenses threw off the balance of the camera/lens combo). In terms of capabilities, price, features, it's a homerun.
not sure where you're coming from on the 1.4.<ul><li><a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/</a</li></ul>
resized to 3"x4" and posted as a jpeg on the web. You will notice the sharpness ramp up as you get closer to f2.8 when you're looking at a 100% crop of an 8MP picture on your screen at home, and you'll notice it if you try to print an 11"x17" photo from it. Also, if you find yourself cropping heavily, you'll definitely notice the difference.
Most lenses approach maximum sharpness at 2 stops down, so that comment isn't something I would focus on. Some lenses are just sharper wide open. I had the 50mm f1.4 and found the indoor available light pictures a little soft wide open. Like I said, by f2.8, they were razor sharp. In contrast, my 85mm f1.8 was razor sharp around f2, and my 135mm f2 is very sharp wide open. If you intend to use this lens for available light photography, this comment about sharpness is something you want to keep in mind. Mainly, my point was that a 50mm focal length on a 1.6x camera is an odd focal length...especially indoors, where you'll find yourself stepping back constantly...probably into walls.
07-22-2005, 11:52 AM
gets a bit grainy sometimes. Those blades make the difference. For $70, I still can't complain though.
07-26-2005, 06:41 PM
handles noise a lot better :-\
Yeah you're right. I'm amazed by the shots those cameras can take at 1600!