this is making my head hurt.

so. I am looking at cameras, right? I have very much outgrown my little starter SLR, and I had NO idea I'd do it so quickly. but I've decided el tax-return-o will go a long way toward making that purchase comfy, so I'm biting the bullet.

I'm testing out a 17-55 on a rent-to-see-if-I-like-it-to-buy it basis. I will let you know what I think. If it's half as good as I've been told it is, then I am going to LOVE it.

And I think I'm getting the 50D. I've tried it and I liked it, but then I've heard alllll these raves about the 5 D mark ii, which, of course, costs twice as much. It seems like it is a fantastic camera, and undoubtedly, it is. But I like the price tag of the 50D better. And it's a faster camera. But that 5 D is a dream someday. And anyway...

one thing that makes me crazy: so, everyone is like "oooh, oooh, but it's FULL FRAME!" (which means your lens doesn't have a multiplier, and that's a good thing in camera-speak)

so, my current camera I have now...or the 50D...if I use a 17-55 lens on it it's the actually like it's a 27-88, right? and if I got a full frame camera, it would be what it says on the lens--a 17-55. Got that?

Well, I'm on the phone with a very nice lady, asking her questions about camera-ese, and she's saying about the full frame and actual lenses, blahblah. how a 17 IS a 17, and how it'd be a 27 or whatever on my camera. cool, fine, got it. except the full frame uses a different type of lens, and that type? the widest it goes is a 24. lame-o. so that extra, what, 10 or 7 mm, depending on how you look at it? You couldn't even utilize if you wanted to.

riiiight. so the benefit you're flaunting is one you can't even utilize? well, comparing this lens to existing ones, anyway. once you get into higher mm #s of course you can. but I just found it slightly humorous, math nerd that I am.

the end.