lens and flash for canon 10D?

[Sendide]

hi everybody, :)
It's my first time in this forum and I should probably thank all of the participants cause it's really informative. I've been reading a lot about the canon 10D before ordering it, I got it finally.
I've been using some classic lenses (28-105 3.5-4.5 USM and the 75-300 IS USM) with my rebel as well as the 420 ex speedlite.
what I'm asking please is :
1/ almost everyone uses the 550EX with the 10D, is it much better than the 420EX knowing that with the 10D , the 1.6 factor will not allow the flash to be useful at lower than 24 mm ?
2/ given its relatively high expensive price, is the 16-35 2.8 L USM much better than the new sigma 12-24 mm for the 10D, is it worth it compared to the lenses cited above?
thanks

[Vegas Poboy]

I can only comment about the 420EX flash and it is a great all purpose fully auto flash. You can only adjust it by using the flash compensation within camera. If you want more control over your lighting it is recommended to get the 550EX. I have both I started out with the 420EX then after I started taking classes I had some extra $$$ purchased 550EX for controlled lighting assignments.
As for the lense the widest I own is the 17-40mm f/4 and both flashes work well with that lense if you use a flash bracket.

[Canuck]

hi everybody, :)
It's my first time in this forum and I should probably thank all of the participants cause it's really informative. I've been reading a lot about the canon 10D before ordering it, I got it finally.
I've been using some classic lenses (28-105 3.5-4.5 USM and the 75-300 IS USM) with my rebel as well as the 420 ex speedlite.
what I'm asking please is :
1/ almost everyone uses the 550EX with the 10D, is it much better than the 420EX knowing that with the 10D , the 1.6 factor will not allow the flash to be useful at lower than 24 mm ?
2/ given its relatively high expensive price, is the 16-35 2.8 L USM much better than the new sigma 12-24 mm for the 10D, is it worth it compared to the lenses cited above?
thanks

Ok,
First of all, you will more than likely need better lenses, most and I do man most consumer grade lenses will not hack it with the 10D. It is much like which would you rather, chop meat, or porterhouse? I vote porterhouse in a heartbeat! I can't speak for the Sigma 12-24 lens, but have heard some issues like vignetting and and it really isn't that stunning a lens. I can speak about the Canon 16-35mm F.2.8L lens. This lens rocks! I have taken all kinds of pics with it from portrait to landscape pics and I can't get over it. Granted there is an almost $1000 difference between them and the end ot he day, you pay a huge % more for the last 10%. Only you can make that decision. If you have the money, go for it, you will not be disappointed! I will warn you, at 16mm you can get some distortion, as it is a fisheye lens at that focal length. Much above 20mm there is no worries. Again, I can't be sure about this, but if I am having issues with the 16-35 on the Canon at 16mm, you will likely have hte same problems from 12 to at least 16 mm on the Sigma. This is only cool for if you're into really distorted pics. I hear it can be fixed though. I like to take pics right the first time and do as little post processing as possible. You will understannd this as you shoot several hundred RAW pics. Oh, yes another bit, always shoot RAW! You will not believe the difference between the RAW and JPEG pics. It will take a littl emore to get it where it should be, but you are not using the camera to its full potential also. That's all I can think of for now...

[ilya]

Hi Sendide,

The 420 EX compared to 550 EX -
Less powerful flash output than 550EX
No LCD control and display panel at the back.
It can work only as a wireless slave or independent unit – no master mode available.
No flash ratio control in a multiple flash setup.
Does not have the flash range LCD display of the 550EX – this information allows the photographer to double check if the flash is within the operating distance before shooting.
No ultra wide angle coverage as it lacks a wide panel diffuser. It won’t illuminate adequately any shot wider than 24mm.
Limited tilt coverage – the 550EX has a 5˚ downward tilt for close-up shots while the 420EX does not.
However, it depends on what you need in a flash. I find that the 420EX is perfectly adequate for all my needs. You may need some of that listed above to justify the extra cost.

On your second question, I can't speak for the Sigma, but a more appropriate comparison for the 16-35 would be to the Canon EF 17-40L. Four mm is huge at the wide end; if you need a 12mm you should get a 12mm. If you need a nice wide-angle lense, you should choose between the two mentioned, and perhaps the Sigma 15-30. I've read many reviews on the topic, and the 17-40L 4.0, which I own and like very much, seems to offer a terrific good performance for much less in cost then the 16-35L. The only difference seems to be is the stop difference. That is also a personal choice.

See this link for a thorough comparison between 17-40 and 16-35. I'd take the 17-40 any day. http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[scottbergerphoto]

[quote=Sendide][i]hi everybody, :)

Ok,
First of all, you will more than likely need better lenses, most and I do man most consumer grade lenses will not hack it with the 10D. It is much like which would you rather, chop meat, or porterhouse? .
Now where have I seen that analogy before? :D
I agree, the 16-35 f/2.8 is a great lens. I use it for landscapes and seascapes. Money well spent.
Scott

[Sendide]

Hi everybody,
thank you very much for your enlightment, much better vision now. I think that I should save some money and go for the 16-35 mm. I have to admit that the comparison offered by Ilya's link make me think twice about the 17-40 ...(the 17-40 seems even better with less distorsion and sharper images !!!). Does it realy matter a lot the difference from 2.8 to 4? especially for some indoors pics?
another question please : a lot of people talk about "vignetting". I have no idea about it!! :shock:
the flash comparison was so clear that I know exactly what to do : use my 420EX and wait for any good deal used 550EX.
regards
Kh

[slin100]

1/ almost everyone uses the 550EX with the 10D, is it much better than the 420EX knowing that with the 10D , the 1.6 factor will not allow the flash to be useful at lower than 24 mm ?

Regarding flash coverage, either flash is quite usable with lenses with focal lengths < 24mm. The 10D (and the 300D, too, I believe) report the real focal length of the attached lens to the flash. As a result, the flash coverage is wider than necessary.

This means that even at its widest setting, either flash can accomodate as wide as a 15mm lens. The 550EX, with its wide-angle diffuser, can accomodate an 11mm lens.

[Vegas Poboy]

Hi everybody,
thank you very much for your enlightment, much better vision now. I think that I should save some money and go for the 16-35 mm. I have to admit that the comparison offered by Ilya's link make me think twice about the 17-40 ...(the 17-40 seems even better with less distorsion and sharper images !!!). Does it realy matter a lot the difference from 2.8 to 4? especially for some indoors pics?
another question please : a lot of people talk about "vignetting". I have no idea about it!! :shock:
the flash comparison was so clear that I know exactly what to do : use my 420EX and wait for any good deal used 550EX.
regards
Kh

The 17-40mm is a good lense the one stop difference is not a big deal if you're going to use flash or do low light outdoor shots on a tripod. Since you have the camera try changing the ISO settings and see how much noise you're willing to accept when you enlarge a print without the flash. Then do the same after you purchase the flash and go from there. Just think wisely on purchasing lenses, Canon & N**** has good value to their lense most 2nd brands don't, if you can try it before you buy it.
I've bought lens that lost there value right away and now I'm stuck with them.