Help me plan my first SLR

Ok... I have been waiting a long time, saving up... when I get my bonus soon I am jumping into SLR. My current camera is a Fuji S602z, which has a 35-210mm zoom range and it has gotten to the point of being frustrating to me. Focus is slow, low light performance is poor and noisy, camera is just slow in general.

I have decided to go with the 20d or 30d, after comparing the options of the other cameras, but my real conundrum is where to start lens-wise. I like to try to do things right the first time, and I keep leaning toward the 24-70L 2.8 as a starter lens, but I don't know if I will be able to pull off buying that AND the camera at the same time. I like to take pictures of people (candids) mainly, I suppose, and some outdoors/landscape shots... lots of pictures of my cats

I love having the ability to use a narrow DOF and would also like good lower light performance (not that it would be hard to beat the fuji) which is why I am leaning towards the 2.8 lens as my first general lens. I figure in the future I could get a 70-200 and something like a 10-22, but 24-70 2.8 seems like the closest I can come to what I would want.

However, as I said, that is a good chunk of change to lay down and I am wondering what other more experienced opinions may say. Is there some other lens like the Tokina 28-80mm 2.8 that I as an amateur wouldn't be able to deistinguish from the L or should I get the kit lens if I can't afford the 24-70L for now and save up?

I've tried to be thorough but I'm sure I haven't provided all info needed, but I'll appreciate any help, thanks.

Do a little research on the Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

I have one and it is very sharp. I don't have any L lenses to compare it to, but if you do some researching on sites like http://www.bobatkins.com and then check out samples on http://www.pbase.com , you can maybe form an opinion on if it will work for you. Some say it compares to L quality.
--
http://www.pbase.com/showell/galleries

God gave us an incredible world. See it, hear it, Touch it, taste it, smell it, PHOTOGRAPH IT!

Hi Anthony,

What kind subjects do you have in mind?

The 24-70 is a very narrow range. It's useful in 35mm film or FF format. But with 20D or 30D, it's NOt wide enough and it's NOT long enough. This focal range is also very popular that there are so many good choices from different vendors. Canon is the most expensive, but I don't think it's worth its high price. This Canon is also famous for its irregular quality. Searched the forum and you will see people wows and others said it sucks.

I'd suggest you to get a 24-105 IS instead.

For me, if money is no subject, a good combination wii be:

1. Canon 10-22 (I think this lens could be the sharpest wide angle Canon ever made, porobably better than Canon 16-35 f2.8)

2. Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (This lens is not out yet. I'm assuming this lens is good. It's fit most of your low light need.) If this lens turns out to be not that good, teh kit lens (18-55 f3.5-5.6) is actually very usable.

This is a much more useful focal rnage compared to 24-70. (If you time 1.6 to teh focal lens, it become 26mm-88mm for FF, which covers teh typical wide angle and th elong end is good for portrait).

3. Plus a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS.

This lens is very sharp if you can find a "good copy". I'd opt for a good copy of this lens vs any versions of 70-200s.

4. You can add your fast (like 85 f1.8) and long tele-lenses here. They are usually more expensive.

And don't forget you still need a flash.

Eric.

Anthony Ball said:

Ok... I have been waiting a long time, saving up... when I get my
bonus soon I am jumping into SLR. My current camera is a Fuji
S602z, which has a 35-210mm zoom range and it has gotten to the
point of being frustrating to me. Focus is slow, low light
performance is poor and noisy, camera is just slow in general.

I have decided to go with the 20d or 30d, after comparing the
options of the other cameras, but my real conundrum is where to
start lens-wise. I like to try to do things right the first time,
and I keep leaning toward the 24-70L 2.8 as a starter lens, but I
don't know if I will be able to pull off buying that AND the camera
at the same time. I like to take pictures of people (candids)
mainly, I suppose, and some outdoors/landscape shots... lots of
pictures of my cats
I love having the ability to use a narrow DOF and would also like
good lower light performance (not that it would be hard to beat the
fuji) which is why I am leaning towards the 2.8 lens as my first
general lens. I figure in the future I could get a 70-200 and
something like a 10-22, but 24-70 2.8 seems like the closest I can
come to what I would want.

However, as I said, that is a good chunk of change to lay down and
I am wondering what other more experienced opinions may say. Is
there some other lens like the Tokina 28-80mm 2.8 that I as an
amateur wouldn't be able to deistinguish from the L or should I get
the kit lens if I can't afford the 24-70L for now and save up?

I've tried to be thorough but I'm sure I haven't provided all info
needed, but I'll appreciate any help, thanks.

Click to expand...

i didn't even read any of that hahaha i'm just going to say get a REBEL you probably won't regret it

oh okay so i read some of it now. get the 20 or 30, but for a lens, get the kit lens! it's soooo cheap and sooo underrated. once you get the kit lens you can see what your likes and dislikes are. wait a few months and then buy a lens that you think you will enjoy. not only will you know what you'll want based on YOUR personal wants (not what someone tells you you should get) but you will end up saving up that money to make sure it counts.

i would also have to recomend (i'm sure i'm not the first one to) the EF 50 f/1.8. seriously if you order a camera body + kit lens and add on the 50/1.8 it's like an extra $150 more than just the body and it's well spent.

when i first got my camera i had this huge idea that the kit lens wasn't worth anything and i had to upgrade ASAP, and i beleived this for a while. but the other day i went down to mardi gras and took my kit lens (my only normal zoom lens) and i was more than satisfied with the pictures, in fact some of them were the best pictures to come out of my camera yet.

i've had my camera since jan. and i own three lenses. Kit, 50/1.8 and sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6. total money spent.... $850 for the body+kit lens, $200 for the sigma, $70 for the 50/1.8 so total was about $1200. not too bad. but know i konw what to look for in a future lens

i know i want IS and a longer reach than the kit offers, so my next walk around is going to be the EF-S 17-85

i know i want a wider angle for my "fast" lens, so i'm going to get the sigma 20mm f/1.8 to replace the 50/1.8

and i'll have to wait until the nationals/cardinals game to see what i want out of a tele zoom lens! (if i got an L lens it would probably be this one-70-200 f/4.0L? i've heard great things!)

no offense, but i really don't like it when people ask what to get on these forums because i always love to do all the shopping experimenting etc. on my own and i really don't pay too much attention to what other people recommend. so that is my advice! find out for yourself! you wlil enjoy it much more knowing that you like your lens combo instead of just what someone told ya to get

SandyKHo said:

Do a little research on the Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Click to expand...

Hi SandyKHo. Since we seem to like the same gear, I wonder if you are at all tempted by the new EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS zoom? Waaaay too expensive. It certainly isn't necessary. But I can't stop thinking about how to sneak this one by the spouse. Very scary!

Sal

If you are on a budget, go with a 350 and get better optics - it will pay off!!

The only reason to get a 20/30D would be if your shooting involves a lot of fast moving objects where the D20 auto focus would excel over the 350 - otherwise no difference in picture/noise/resolution quality.

Spend where it pays off:

EF 10-22

EF-S 60 macro (or wait for the new 17-55 2,8 IS which will probably be a kiler)
Ef 70-200/4L

and You will have fun for shure!

--
Ansel Adams: 'There is nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea.'

Hi Sal,

Actually I hadn't given the 17-55 much thought...too pricey for me. Since November I've bought the Sigma 30 F1.4 and I sold my Canon 75-300 IS USM and bought the 70-300 IS USM. I think next on my wish list is a Sigma 10-20 maybe....I don't have anything wider than 18mm at present.

After having the Sigma 1.4 I don't even think of F2.8 as being a fast lens anymore. There are a lot of indoor shots that I am getting with the Sigma that I couldn't ever get with my 2.8. I think that means I've been spoiled by the F1.4.

You and I are two peas in a pod. We do seem to like the same gear, and I,too am always trying to find a way to sneak something new by my husband! I don't think I could pull it off with an eleven hundred dollar lens, though! Lol! Incidentally, have you been dreaming of a 30D?.......
--
http://www.pbase.com/showell/galleries

God gave us an incredible world. See it, hear it, Touch it, taste it, smell it, PHOTOGRAPH IT!

20D (30D now) - XT is good though, I like mine.
17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS lens (not available yet - contingent on real world tests)
10-22mm EF-S
70-200 2.8 EF IS - pricy, it'd be the one I'd put off and save for the most.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - need a fast prime
580EX flash - have one and love it
Off-shoe camera cord
Flash bracket, Tripod, Monopod
3 x 1GB Sandisk Extreme III CF cards - have these and they're great.

That would be my main setup. Other considerations would be Canon's 50mm 1.8 lens since it's so cheap and a 100 or 105mm dedicated Macro lens.

But it's all relative on how serious you are about your shots. You don't have to spend that much money if you're not that serious... I'm just listing what I would get now after having had a digital SLR for a year and reading far more about cameras and lenses than one person should.

Anthony Ball said:

Ok... I have been waiting a long time, saving up... when I get my
bonus soon I am jumping into SLR. My current camera is a Fuji
S602z, which has a 35-210mm zoom range and it has gotten to the
point of being frustrating to me. Focus is slow, low light
performance is poor and noisy, camera is just slow in general.

I have decided to go with the 20d or 30d, after comparing the
options of the other cameras, but my real conundrum is where to
start lens-wise. I like to try to do things right the first time,
and I keep leaning toward the 24-70L 2.8 as a starter lens, but I
don't know if I will be able to pull off buying that AND the camera
at the same time. I like to take pictures of people (candids)
mainly, I suppose, and some outdoors/landscape shots... lots of
pictures of my cats
I love having the ability to use a narrow DOF and would also like
good lower light performance (not that it would be hard to beat the
fuji) which is why I am leaning towards the 2.8 lens as my first
general lens. I figure in the future I could get a 70-200 and
something like a 10-22, but 24-70 2.8 seems like the closest I can
come to what I would want.

However, as I said, that is a good chunk of change to lay down and
I am wondering what other more experienced opinions may say. Is
there some other lens like the Tokina 28-80mm 2.8 that I as an
amateur wouldn't be able to deistinguish from the L or should I get
the kit lens if I can't afford the 24-70L for now and save up?

I've tried to be thorough but I'm sure I haven't provided all info
needed, but I'll appreciate any help, thanks.

Click to expand...

SandyKHo said:

Lol! Incidentally, have you been
dreaming of a 30D?.......

Click to expand...

That's a tough one. I have thought about it, but it sounds like for the image quality would be the same. I probably will waste more money on lenses!

Sal

As I said the main things I photograph now are candids and cat photos The occasional landscape/outdoors shots. I will probably do some portraits, but usually I do candids.

Guh... it's maddening. There are so many lenses to choose from each with their own bonuses aqnd drawbacks.... very difficult when you are coming into it with no experience. I think maybe the advice later was the most sound, get the kit lens for cheap and play with it, then I'll have at least some idea of what I am missing. What I really need is a place where I can rent some of these expensive lenses for a day and see what I can do with them. Unfortunately I just moved to the Augusta, Maine area, and I doubt I can find anything local.

I have worried about the short range of the 24-70, but I like the ability to run a shallow DOF.

Eric Chi said:

What kind subjects do you have in mind?

The 24-70 is a very narrow range. It's useful in 35mm film or FF
format. But with 20D or 30D, it's NOt wide enough and it's NOT long
enough. This focal range is also very popular that there are so
many good choices from different vendors. Canon is the most
expensive, but I don't think it's worth its high price. This Canon
is also famous for its irregular quality. Searched the forum and
you will see people wows and others said it sucks.

I'd suggest you to get a 24-105 IS instead.

For me, if money is no subject, a good combination wii be:
1. Canon 10-22 (I think this lens could be the sharpest wide angle
Canon ever made, porobably better than Canon 16-35 f2.8)

2. Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (This lens is not out yet. I'm assuming this
lens is good. It's fit most of your low light need.) If this lens
turns out to be not that good, teh kit lens (18-55 f3.5-5.6) is
actually very usable.
This is a much more useful focal rnage compared to 24-70. (If you
time 1.6 to teh focal lens, it become 26mm-88mm for FF, which
covers teh typical wide angle and th elong end is good for
portrait).

3. Plus a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS.
This lens is very sharp if you can find a "good copy". I'd opt for
a good copy of this lens vs any versions of 70-200s.

4. You can add your fast (like 85 f1.8) and long tele-lenses here.
They are usually more expensive.

And don't forget you still need a flash.

Eric.

Anthony Ball said:

Ok... I have been waiting a long time, saving up... when I get my
bonus soon I am jumping into SLR. My current camera is a Fuji
S602z, which has a 35-210mm zoom range and it has gotten to the
point of being frustrating to me. Focus is slow, low light
performance is poor and noisy, camera is just slow in general.

I have decided to go with the 20d or 30d, after comparing the
options of the other cameras, but my real conundrum is where to
start lens-wise. I like to try to do things right the first time,
and I keep leaning toward the 24-70L 2.8 as a starter lens, but I
don't know if I will be able to pull off buying that AND the camera
at the same time. I like to take pictures of people (candids)
mainly, I suppose, and some outdoors/landscape shots... lots of
pictures of my cats
I love having the ability to use a narrow DOF and would also like
good lower light performance (not that it would be hard to beat the
fuji) which is why I am leaning towards the 2.8 lens as my first
general lens. I figure in the future I could get a 70-200 and
something like a 10-22, but 24-70 2.8 seems like the closest I can
come to what I would want.

However, as I said, that is a good chunk of change to lay down and
I am wondering what other more experienced opinions may say. Is
there some other lens like the Tokina 28-80mm 2.8 that I as an
amateur wouldn't be able to deistinguish from the L or should I get
the kit lens if I can't afford the 24-70L for now and save up?

I've tried to be thorough but I'm sure I haven't provided all info
needed, but I'll appreciate any help, thanks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SNGX1327 said:

when i first got my camera i had this huge idea that the kit lens
wasn't worth anything and i had to upgrade ASAP, and i beleived
this for a while. but the other day i went down to mardi gras and
took my kit lens (my only normal zoom lens) and i was more than
satisfied with the pictures, in fact some of them were the best
pictures to come out of my camera yet.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you may be right... the kit lens is super cheap and
would give me an idea of what I miss the most. I can also play with it
in the 30 and 50mm range to see which prime I would prefer.

SNGX1327 said:

no offense, but i really don't like it when people ask what to get
on these forums because i always love to do all the shopping
experimenting etc. on my own and i really don't pay too much
attention to what other people recommend. so that is my advice!
find out for yourself! you wlil enjoy it much more knowing that you
like your lens combo instead of just what someone told ya to get

Click to expand...

The problem is I this is my first SLR and there is a lot to choose from,
I have no experience to draw on and would rather not make say, a $500 mistake

is the best choice for you if the money is a bit tight. Great range and IS, reasonable image quality

There is a lot of L snobbery here, dont listen unless you have an appropriate budget.

Or else if the budget is less tight buy 10-22 EF-S + 24-70f/2.8L + 70-300 DO IS.
All great lenses, this is my current setup. Costs about 3000$

But, I started with the kit lens + 28-135 IS + 50f/1.8, costs about 600$

And you know what? 600$ setup delivers about 75% of "capability" of 3000$ setup for one fifth of the price.

--
Regards

alexeig

http://www.pbase.com/alexeig

Anthony Ball wrote:
[snip]

Anthony Ball said:

Guh... it's maddening. There are so many lenses to choose from each
with their own bonuses aqnd drawbacks.... very difficult when you
are coming into it with no experience. I think maybe the advice

Click to expand...

I'm also planning on purchasing a dSLR at the end of the month, and I can completely relate to what you're going through.

It didn't take me too long to decide on getting a Rebel XT, but choosing the lens was another matter. When all you've ever owned is a fixed-lens camera, the amount of lens choices is daunting for a first-time buyer. You soon realize that there's no such thing as a lens that will do everything, so you have to think about how you'll be using the camera, and narrow down your choices to a few lenses that will best fit your needs.

Chances are, I'll be passing on the kit lens and getting the Tamron 28-75. Initially, concert photography will be what I'll be using the XT for 80-90% of the time, so I need a relatively fast lens. I wouldn't mind something that has a little more reach, but for my budget the Tamron will be good enough. I also didn't want my very first lens to be a prime as I'm too accustomed to working with p&s cameras, most of which have a decent zoom range.

Size and protability are also a consideration; I think the above setup should all fit in a relatively small open-top bag (like the ones Lowepro makes).

Good luck with your choices and eventual purchase!

--
---------
Terence
http://www.pbase.com/auriga_m38

Anthony Ball said:

I love having the ability to use a narrow DOF and would also like
good lower light performance (not that it would be hard to beat the
fuji) which is why I am leaning towards the 2.8 lens as my first
general lens.

Click to expand...

That is a lot of money to lay down just to get f2.8 vs a f4 or there-abouts on a zoom. Under 135mm, I can't see any reason to pay a premium for f2.8, when a zoom isn't as fast nor as sharp as a prime. At wider angles there is very little difference to show for that stop in terms of issolating depth of field. I would instead recommend you look seriously into getting a regular zoom + a prime. Maybe something along the lines of the 17-85IS + the 85/1.8 or the Sigma 30/1.4

With a prime indoors, you will have real control over DOF - 2 stops faster than a f2.8 zoom - and much much better sharpness. Don't buy a (non-telephoto) zoom in order to shoot for DOF, you throw a lot of money at a specific type of photo, and the results you will get in this case can't compare to a cheapish prime.

Even my 70-200IS stopped down to f4



is not as sharp as an 85mm prime at f2.5



(especially obvious at 100%)

--
-CW

I was in the same situation a month ago, with the same requirements (people photos, landscapes and indoor sports). Here's what I did.

I borrowed a RebelXT from a friend for the weekend. It was way too small for my hands. I got sore muscles from trying to hold it for more than 10 minutes.

I tried the 20d in a store. The size was much better for me. There are many other pros of the 20d (30d) like the build quality, higher fps and the wonderful command wheel on the back but I could have probably lived without them if the rebelxt wasn't so painful to hold.

As far as lenses were concerned, I was also looking at the 24-70L, but couldn't justify the initial outlay (especially at inflated canadian prices) and really didn't have a good appreciation for what my needs were.

So...

Step 1:

I got the 20d + kit lens, and a 50 f1.8. Played with that for three weeks. Really, the kit lens is quite good. There is a very measurable difference between the quality of the photos I used to take with my Powershot G6 and the 20d+18-55 kit. But, without flash you can pretty much forget using it indoors it seems. The 50 1.8 is a godsend in that respect, and I would say that I used it way more than the kit for those three weeks, simply because I was indoors a lot. But... 50mm on a 1.6 crop is too long for anything but headshots in a small apartment. Cat pictures, ok.. but not much more. The quality of both these lenses when they aren't being pushed to the limit is more than satisfactory for my needs.

Step 2:

I bit the bullet and got the 24-70L from B&H. There are two things that I absolutely love about it. In terms of image quality, it is another step up. Not a huge difference like the g6 to 20d+kit move, but there's something about the colours that is just a lot more... right. Even with my untrained eye I can often pick out the 'better' image almost immediately. Second, it's silent and smooth . No whirring, grinding chunkiness that you get from some non-usm lenses.

On the other hand... it is BIG. Not a little bigger. Much bigger than the kit lens. And heavy too. You won't ever forget you've got a camera around your neck. The RebelXT would absolutely disappear behind this lens.

So - I'm a happy camper. I'll keep the kit and 50mm because they both have their uses (much smaller, lighter and still very good quality) but the 24-70L gets to live on the 20d.

One other option might be to stick with the kit+50mm and add a fast wider prime (20mm or something) so that you don't have to walk 20ft away to get a full length shot of someone. You'll probably save some cash that way, but it may mean lens-switching like mad at times. The biggest reason that I didn't go this route is because I wanted a one-lens solution for everyday use. I'm pleased with my decision.

Good luck - it will be fun, either way!

I've noticed that others have offered similar advice, but here's my thoughts on the subject.

(1) Get the kit lens - it costs very little and gives reasonable performance, particularly as a wide-angle. It's also a great walk-around lens for holidays as it's small and light. Learn what focal lengths you use most and which of it's limitations you find most annoying.

(2) Get the 50mm f1.8 - also low cost and reasonable performance. It allow you to do low-light work and is very useful for portraits on the 1.6 crop bodies, the wide aperture allows nice OOF backgrounds. Same advice as for the kit, use it and see which of it's limitations actually hinder you.

After that, you'll be in a much better position to see what you do need to buy to take the photos you want, and you won't have laid out lots of cash to find out. Plus, the kit lens and the 50mm f1.8 will always be useful.

--
You want macros? We got 'em! Check out:
http://www.pbase.com/cjed

I'm basically going to repeat what others have said here, because it's sound advice for starting out:
Start with the kit plus a fast prime.

The cheap, but still good version, is the 18-55 plus the 50 1.8 (which is a lens I love)

The more expensive but more versatile version of kit+prime is the 17-85 IS + the Sigma 30 1.4. This combo will cost a just a bit less than a new 24-70L, but give you more range, IS, and a faster lens when you need it. 30mm is also a nice prime size on the 20/30D

I've used all of the above, and have been happy with all of them...they were great for me as learning tools, and take sharp photos. Now, a couple years into it, I've treated myself to the 24-70, and it is fantastic too. If you feel like splurging, you wont be unhappy with this lens, though it's not very wide on the cropped cameras. Still, if I could only have one lens at this point, it would be the 24-70L.
--
~ Curt
http://www.pbase.com/cdgerston

The kit lens is not very good for candids of people. I think you should start with the extra $$ and get the 30D + kit lens and a good prime like the 35mm f/2 which costs $230. You can see my candids of my kids in my favorites gallery and you will get a sense of the differences between the kit, the 35mm prime and the 85mm prime.

I am hoping to buy the new 17-55mm if it gets good reviews.

I got started a few months ago with a Rebel XT and it's great, but a little small.

--
Nimnar -- Photo junkie
http://www.pbase.com/nimnar

I agree with getting the kit lens first then a fast prime. I found the IQ of the kit lens to be very good when there was enough light. I now have fast primes that are better for low light shots, but the kit gave me great candids.

This is with the kit lens/XT at ISO-400 from a year ago...