Hi. I'm planning to get Canon 400d (or Sony Alpha - depends though :D) just want to ask DSLR users if an IS lens that important to have good shots? I'm a user of S3IS, and IS on this camera I can say is a good feature (and very useful) built into it. I'm taking a look at Sony Alpha, and in its body, they have included Super Steady shot (image stabilizer version), so that you can use any lens even without image stabilizers equipped. Any tips?

Thanks!!

as i always say..it's a convenience but not a necessity (personal opinion). great photogs in the past never used IS but still, worked around the capabilities of their lenses.

but if i can pick money on trees, i will definitely buy some telephoto lenses with IS.

good point there, thanks! but do you have any ideas how much an EF/EFS lens with IS costs?

good point there, thanks! but do you have any ideas how much an EF/EFS lens with IS costs?

depends what lens =)

im eyeing for the 100-400 L IS and 70-200 f2.8 IS which costs 2000$ canadian:(

depends what lens =)

im eyeing for the 100-400 L IS and 70-200 f2.8 IS which costs 2000$ canadian:(

wow.. pretty expensive :( :(

Chickenfeet kay Glenn yan :D

Chickenfeet kay Glenn yan :D

funny you mentioned it..since i got my gear by cooking chickens :D

but no..im not a gearhead:BlackEye: and will only buy what i need..hjehehehe

good point there, thanks! but do you have any ideas how much an EF/EFS lens with IS costs?
Mon,
I just checked at InfoMaxx here in Makati, a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non-IS version) is around P70K while its IS model is around P90K. Its probably cheaper though at Hidalgo. But Glenn is right, an IS is not really a necessity but more of a convenience. I use a 70-200mm f/4L, the cheapest "L" lens, locally selling at around P48K but got mine at Amazon.com for less than $600 (or P30,000).

Mon,
I just checked at InfoMaxx here in Makati, a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non-IS version) is around P70K while its IS model is around P90K. Its probably cheaper though at Hidalgo. But Glenn is right, an IS is not really a necessity but more of a convenience. I use a 70-200mm f/4L, the cheapest "L" lens, locally selling at around P48K but got mine at Amazon.com for less than $600 (or P30,000).

Thanks, I'm new in digital photography field, and I'm quite shocked with the prices of the lens..

Anyone here could advise if the Sony Alpha is good?

Thanks, I'm new in digital photography field, and I'm quite shocked with the prices of the lens..

Anyone here could advise if the Sony Alpha is good?et

DUDE - if you're interested in Canon lenses and would like to get an idea of the price range - check ou the CANON print ad that appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer today (DEC 19). Main section ... this should serve as a guide only when in comes to "bargaining" time with stores in Hidalgo.

... now Santa, for me, i'd want the 10-22mm wide angle ... would also be good if you can throw in an extension tube for my 100mm macro ... and maybe throw in a radio transmitter for my flash as well .. blah blah blah .. :)

Thanks, I'm new in digital photography field, and I'm quite shocked with the prices of the lens..

Anyone here could advise if the Sony Alpha is good?

Yes, the SONY Alpha is an excellent camera... though not as excellent as its forefather, the Konica Minolta Dynax 7D. The anti-shake is built-in the body itself, practically any lens that you'll attach will be stabilized (but you still need to determine your limits). Nonetheless, picture quality would still be dependent on the lens that you will use. The kit lens that comes with the Sony Alpha-100 (18-70mm DT Lens) is not a pro-lens. If you really intend to capture and reproduce excellent images, you're far better off using high-end lenses (e.g. the Minolta G-class lenses or the newer Sony-Carl Zeiss lenses) which again are pricey (e.g. the SAL 70-200mm f/2.8 costs around US$2400 while the SAL 300mm f/2.8 is about US$6000).:Shock:

what a way to enter this field of digital photography.. :Shock:

what a way to enter this field of digital photography.. :Shock:

Oooopppsss... don't get me wrong. Not all excellent images are captured by the most expensive equipment. Photography is not about cameras, but rather about photographs. Start with the basic... almost all brands have a decent pricing on their entry-level DSLRs. The expensive optics are not necessary to start your interest in digital photography.

Oooopppsss... don't get me wrong. Not all excellent images are captured by the most expensive equipment. Photography is not about cameras, but rather about photographs. Start with the basic... almost all brands have a decent pricing on their entry-level DSLRs. The expensive optics are not necessary to start your interest in digital photography.

yes i understand completely - I haven't really got my hands full on a DSLR, but my father owns an EFS lens from a Film SLR (EOS 750), is it ok to get the DSLR cam with the kit lens or better get a different zoom lens (sorry I'm not that familiar with lenses) :(

yes i understand completely - I haven't really got my hands full on a DSLR, but my father owns an EFS lens from a Film SLR (EOS 750), is it ok to get the DSLR cam with the kit lens or better get a different zoom lens (sorry I'm not that familiar with lenses) :(

The kit lens as part of the package is a true bargain... almost paying a fraction of the cost if you buy that same lens separately. Your EFS lens will probably mount and work on any of Canon's dSLR. I believe the 400D is an excellent performer. If you have flexible budget, try to add a 50mm f/1.8 (a cheap prime lens) to really appreciate excellent captures (or perhaps the EFS lens that you have is already a prime/fixed focal lens). :)

The kit lens as part of the package is a true bargain... almost paying a fraction of the cost if you buy that same lens separately. Your EFS lens will probably mount and work on any of Canon's dSLR. I believe the 400D is an excellent performer. If you have flexible budget, try to add a 50mm f/1.8 (a cheap prime lens) to really appreciate excellent captures (or perhaps the EFS lens that you have is already a prime/fixed focal lens). :)

yes you're correct it can mount an EFS lens to 400D. I'm also hearing not so good reviews about sony alpha..

yes you're correct it can mount an EFS lens to 400D. I'm also hearing not so good reviews about sony alpha..

Mon, don't rely so much on online reviews. Best way is to really try out the cameras in your hands. Ive been using the Sony Alpha for quite sometime now, and am satisfied with the results (at par with any DSLR in the market). Of course, I cannot expect the same performance that I get from the KM 7D my main workhorse. Since you already have an EFS lens in your possession, then the Canon 400D is definitely the way to go to start your venture into digital photography. Go for it! :)

Of course, there is an alternative to the a100 for in-body stabilization. :)

Mon, don't rely so much on online reviews. Best way is to really try out the cameras in your hands. Ive been using the Sony Alpha for quite sometime now, and am satisfied with the results (at par with any DSLR in the market). Of course, I cannot expect the same performance that I get from the KM 7D my main workhorse. Since you already have an EFS lens in your possession, then the Canon 400D is definitely the way to go to start your venture into digital photography. Go for it! :)

Thanks Jose. Got my hands yesterday on Sony Alpha - and yup it shot good pictures. though it gave me a second thought of choosing it, but most probably I'll go with 400d.. :) sad to say the alpha is way too expensive too - almost the same cost as Nikon d80... :(

Pssst... The Nikon D40 is an excellent cam as well. :Grin:

Bro, I have tried both camera with their kit lens during their exhibits/lauches, I'm favoring the 400D a lot more not because I'm a Canon user but because of ISO capabilities of the two camera, though, You should see for yourself and by the way, Alpha seems very picky on CF cards, tried my CFs on it and only 1 CF it could read/recognized.

Just my two cents though
Sau

Bro, I have tried both camera with their kit lens during their exhibits/lauches, I'm favoring the 400D a lot more not because I'm a Canon user but because of ISO capabilities of the two camera, though, You should see for yourself and by the way, Alpha seems very picky on CF cards, tried my CFs on it and only 1 CF it could read/recognized.

Just my two cents though
Sau

Thanks! got my hands yesterday with 400d, hmmm... and I want that camera..

Between Sony Alpha and 400D - I'd always choose 400D! Buy Buy Buy...:)

You can check out my uncle's site (http://www.alyudesign.com/canon_70300.html) here. He reviews his copy of the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens (non-L). The photos look sharp and vivid and the most important part is you pay only a fraction of the price compared to an L version. B&H lists it at US$549.95 which is a steal for the range. You can probably get it at a similar price in Hidalgo. I've already tried the lens and have seen IS at work. It's really an indispensable feature especially for heavier lenses. 400D+this lens will cost around 65,000 pesos which is a nice deal for high calibre glass. I guess you can tell that I'm not a big fan of Sony. :Grin:

as a christmas gift for myself - I got the 400d! and took almost 400 shots yesterday!!!

Mon, enjoy your new toy!:Grin:

Mon, enjoy your new toy!:Grin:

Thanks Sir Poch!!