Body and lens question (canon)

[Snurk71]

I haven't visited this area of the DIS for a while. I learned a LOT 2-3 years ago and bought a canon XT and sigma 18-125 for my walkaround lens (feedback on the kit canon 18-55 lens wasn't good at the time). I later added the nifty 50, and then got greedy for some even better low light performance and bought the 85mm (DW bodybuilds and I needed something fast to get quality theater-type shots).

Speaking of the 85mm, I don't remember the aperature - I think it's 1.8. But the current pricing on that lens looks to be about $200 more than I paid 2-3 years ago. If that's the same lens - YIKES!!!

Anyway...

I'm still using the XT and the sigma lens as my everyday setup. I've watched as newer versions of the XT have been released, and saw that Canon introduced IS with the 18-55 now and isn't too terribly expensive. So, my question to the experts here are...

Lens - do you think I would see a lot of improvement with the 18-55 IS as my walkaround lens. I rarely go on the high end of the zoom with the Sigma, so my guess is I wouldn't miss the reduced focal length much. Also, most of my picture taking is handheld - and I can get a little shaky at times. I've read the IS can improve 3-4 stops.

Body - I know there are a lot more MPs available on the XS, XSi, or whatever the newest model is (I never focused on MPs). I understand new DSLR users getting this model. But is the new and improved that much new and improved (sensor, quality of pictures, etc)?

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[VVFF]

I haven't visited this area of the DIS for a while. I learned a LOT 2-3 years ago and bought a canon XT and sigma 18-125 for my walkaround lens (feedback on the kit canon 18-55 lens wasn't good at the time). I later added the nifty 50, and then got greedy for some even better low light performance and bought the 85mm (DW bodybuilds and I needed something fast to get quality theater-type shots).

Speaking of the 85mm, I don't remember the aperature - I think it's 1.8. But the current pricing on that lens looks to be about $200 more than I paid 2-3 years ago. If that's the same lens - YIKES!!!

Anyway...

I'm still using the XT and the sigma lens as my everyday setup. I've watched as newer versions of the XT have been released, and saw that Canon introduced IS with the 18-55 now and isn't too terribly expensive. So, my question to the experts here are...

Lens - do you think I would see a lot of improvement with the 18-55 IS as my walkaround lens. I rarely go on the high end of the zoom with the Sigma, so my guess is I wouldn't miss the reduced focal length much. Also, most of my picture taking is handheld - and I can get a little shaky at times. I've read the IS can improve 3-4 stops.

Body - I know there are a lot more MPs available on the XS, XSi, or whatever the newest model is (I never focused on MPs). I understand new DSLR users getting this model. But is the new and improved that much new and improved (sensor, quality of pictures, etc)?

Thanks for the feedback.

IS varies a bit in quality from lens to lens. The 18-55mm has I believe "3 stops" of correction...but might be 4. Hard to find info on that exact value sometimes. Either way I find going and using the lens tells you what you can get out of it. I bet you will likely get 2-3 stops of correction in practical use.

How much IS helps depends on where you have shaky hand trouble and how much low light still photography you do. For example:

With my Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS:

"safe" shutter speeds for me:

17mm = 1/6th a second or so
55mm = 1/20th a second or so

Normally the recommended hand holding numbers would be as follows:

17(17*1.6) = 27mm so 1/27th a second
55(55*1.6) = 88mm so 1/88th a second

So I am receiving about 2 stops of correction. This can sometimes be exceeded. I can push the shutter speed to 1/3 a second and take 3 shots and one may come out to be fairly sharp. However, typically there is SOME blur. However, sometimes SOME blur and getting the shot is better than missing the shot completely.

With a "new acquisition" lens....they advertise 4 stops of correction. I was shooting at 100mm(160mm equivalent) and was able to hand hold with some support at 1/20th a second or so. This is three stops of correction and is pretty darn impressive! Different people will see different degrees of success.

So again, yes, IS helps. In fact, when you are use to it, it takes time to acclimate to shutter speeds without it. Just the other day I hand held from the "prone" position for 1 second! The sharpness could never be achieved without IS. I'd say the 18-55mm IS is probably a good lens to grab for you. Check out reviews of the lenses at www.slrgear.com and www.photozone.de. They can give you an idea of the shooting quality of any lenses you are looking at.

In regards to sensors, yes quality has increased. I don't know for sure but I can bet you can expect a 2 step increase in ISO performance(ISO400 = ISO 1600 now). Again, just looking at some reviews at www.dcresource.com and other sites will give you better examples that I can give in this regard.

 

[jann1033]

Lens - do you think I would see a lot of improvement with the 18-55 IS as my walkaround lens. I rarely go on the high end of the zoom with the Sigma, so my guess is I wouldn't miss the reduced focal length much. Also, most of my picture taking is handheld - and I can get a little shaky at times. I've read the IS can improve 3-4 stops.

Body - I know there are a lot more MPs available on the XS, XSi, or whatever the newest model is (I never focused on MPs). I understand new DSLR users getting this model. But is the new and improved that much new and improved (sensor, quality of pictures, etc)?

Thanks for the feedback.

i don't think that it is the mps that make any difference( ie going from 8-10 or so) but rather the much improved focus systems. i got a 40d a few months back and the focus blows my xt focus away. i never felt i got really sharp shots with my xt( or at least not many, although i do have a tendency to be hypercritical of my shots) but same lenses same operator, the 40 d is much much much sharper straight from camera. i got the 40d cause the iq was rated slightly better than the 50d and the price was around the same or less than the new rebels. (speed is better to which i love). so i'd compare the focus systems via good reviews and see which seems best.
and my 50mm 1.8 never worked right with my xt. works great with my 40d

Lens - do you think I would see a lot of improvement with the 18-55 IS as my walkaround lens. I rarely go on the high end of the zoom with the Sigma, so my guess is I wouldn't miss the reduced focal length much. Also, most of my picture taking is handheld - and I can get a little shaky at times. I've read the IS can improve 3-4 stops.

IS is definitely useful in some situations but sometimes imo is way over-hyped. my $39 bogen ultralight monopod is pretty much as useful ( if a little more cumbersome)and costs lots less than most is lenses () so normally i go for a sharp good low light lens over Is if i am choosing between the 2. ( money is always a consideration for me unfortunately ) that's the main thing i don't like about the new kit lens, the f stop still isn't very good so it won't help for anything except you moving.

i recently bought a tamron 17-50 f2.8( around $400) that i really like( they just introduced a image stabilized version for more $$). it's light enough that my hand tremors aren't overboard( like they are with some of my heavier lenses sometimes) and with the 2.8 plus much better noiseless iso of the 40d( my xt was too nosily at 400, 40d is good at 1600 sometimes i might run it through a noise program once if needed ) and bette diagonal cross point focus,so i don't usually have trouble getting a sharp shot, especially since you only need it to be 80 shutter or so without any help since it's not a long lens. course the downside of using a big aperture is if the dof is an important issue in the shot you want to take you can't go very big .