The sensor used in the digicam is smaller than the film frame would be. So what you get is essentially a 28mm (for example) image cropped down and enlarged to what would seem to have been shot with a focal length 1.6x longer or 44.8mm lens on a full-frame or film camera. (Actually if you closely compare a 28mm (for this camera) digital print and a film print of the same size from the same place, like 4x6, taken with a 45mm lens, you'd see differences in the foreground and background, as you might expect from 28mm and 45mm shots from the same position.) This difference tends to be a happy situation for those using longer focal lengths as you seem to have a longer focal length and often "faster" lens, but has been a problem at the wide end because, you'd need to use wider (shorter - usually more expensive) lenses to get coverage that wasn't all that difficult or expensive to have covered before. You don't see a difference in the viewfinders and the print/screen image because you are seeing through the lens "masked" to the sensor size or the image from the sensor. So if you were used to using the 28mm end of the existing zoom, you likely will want to consider either the kit lens or one of the other wider angle lenses that are available to supplement the others because it's like you now have the equivalent of two lenses covering from 44.5mm to 480mm...
Hi, Talking about lenses... I got the kit lens (EOS 350D) and it's not so sharp. Should I just edit it in Photoshop? I actually would like some advise from anyone (if you will) about getting nice sharp images and advise on lenses, not too expensive!. The camera seems to be fantastic and it's got the same features (except eye control focusing) as my previous 35mm SLR (EOS 30V/Elan 7N). Please help, i'm pretty new to photography and find these forums very helpfull. Thank,.
Thanks, Craig. Your response is very helpful. If I don't buy the kit, is there any particular wide angle lens that you recommend? Thanks again...
I'm not sure I could at this point, btw, I have legacy lenses for my Minolta that cover the same overall range, 28-300, so I'm in the same boat. The new KM 17-35 is a Tamron made lens and there is a 17-35 Tamron that is much (but not completely??) the same and available in other mounts. It's getting good comments. I'd prefer a somewhat longer range though. But since KM mounts have been somewhat slower to come down the pipeline I haven't been looking that closely. I'm suspicious of the lenses that cover more extended ranges (if 28-200 was "iffy" for film, wouldn't 18-200, etc., be potentially even more difficult to do well?) but 17-35 just wouldn't meet my needs very well.
It's a bit pricey but other than size and somewhat slow f4 aperture, it's apparently one of the stars of the Canon line...
The Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 (and it's big brother the 28-75/2.8) are excellent lenses, in the same league than Canon L glass. Ive both of them and Im very happy. Cheaper, smaller and lighter than Canon counterparts, but similar in image quality and build, and year lights away of the kit lens performance.
Im attaching a couple of comparisons of both Tamrons, and canon 18-55 and 28-135IS. They are unprocessed 100% crops from the lower left corner, at f/5.6 and f/8 at 28mm. Ive already posted them before in other threads here. 28mm comparison at f5.6.
28mm comparison at f8Guillermo..
Thanks Guillermo and Craig. I learnt a lot from your comments. I think I will get the XT body now, and get the Tamron 17-35 in a few months. Thanks again. Ashi..