Reading mode: Light Dark

Is it better to spend Mony on...

Go to last post
Z

ziwi

Active member
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Also in 350D forum...(get both forum perspectives)

Is it better to spent $1400 US on

20D with kit lens

XT with 17-40L

So essentially is it better to get the better camera with the kit lens and save for better lenses or get the better lens with the cheaper body and know that the lens is an investment where the camera isn't necessarily one.

Thoughts?

Thanks.
 
I know, I'm being a grammar ****, but it's NOT an investment. Investments are things like stocks, bonds, etc. that make you money.

Your camera is an expense. Even if you use it for business as a photographer, it's still an expense. The only way it'd be an intelligent investment was if it didn't consistently depreciate in value over time, which all camera bodies do.

Technically, things like education are not investments even though it's frequently called "investing in yourself/your future/etc". That's also an expense, albeit a worthwhile one.

Sorry, I realize that does very little to answer your question, I just needed to get that out. My inner Linguistic Commando is now sated. ;)

You're in a great position right now as the cheaper Rebel bodies are very close in performance to the more expensive models. As long as you treat the plastic body carefully, there shouldn't be a reason it wouldn't last as long as one of the magnesium ones. If you like the feel of the 350 in your hand, I'd say go for it. Another option is to buy a used 10D, which are going for dirt cheap these days.

Glass is a great thing to spend money on. It holds its value very well, and the 17-40 will work on all EF and EF-S mount cameras. It's not my personal favorite, (the 24-70 is what I'd use for my kind of shooting) but it's a great lens. I'd always recommend buying the best glass you can afford, then worrying about the body after that. Those have an upgrade cycle of every 5 years. Lenses can last you 30+ if you treat them well.

Good luck,
jb

--

--Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.
--Albert Einstein
 
ziwi said:
Also in 350D forum...(get both forum perspectives)

Is it better to spent $1400 US on

20D with kit lens

XT with 17-40L

So essentially is it better to get the better camera with the kit
lens and save for better lenses or get the better lens with the
cheaper body and know that the lens is an investment where the
camera isn't necessarily one.
Click to expand...
Just compare the features of the two cameras and decide what if any improvents in the 20D you need - perhaps for your style and use the XT is quite enough, and there is no reason to spend extra money on the 20D, regardless of the lens bundle. If, on the other hand, you would really benefit from the better build, 5 fps, somewhat better autofocus, custom functions, controls, etc., I would not make the decision on the camera based on how much you can spend on a lens today - you will inevitably be buying more lenses in the future.
--
Misha
 
The lens is ususally the longer term investment, but your shooting needs would determine which camera suits you. I'd say check the reviews on the cameras Phil has provided here, and that will help your determination. If the 20D doesn't 'win' hands down due to any particular feature the XT doesn't have, that would say a lot.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.pbase.com/btullis

 
ziwi said:
Also in 350D forum...(get both forum perspectives)

Is it better to spent $1400 US on

20D with kit lens
Click to expand...
...........................I'm going to assume the 18-55 kit lens
ziwi said:
XT with 17-40L

So essentially is it better to get the better camera with the kit
lens and save for better lenses or get the better lens with the
cheaper body and know that the lens is an investment where the
camera isn't necessarily one.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Most of the time I would agree with your logic, especially if the comparison was a 350D + 24-70 versus a 20D and a 17-85. However, here, the 17-40 as your only lens is less than optimal all by itself (but only because it is so short on the long end), muddying the decision logic.

If this is the only 2 combination in the running, then I give a weak recommendation towards the 350D and 17-40.
--
Mitch
 
Thanks for the replies so far.

If I went with the 350D and 17-40L I would probably spring for the Tamron 28-75 everyone talks about since it seems to be a decent bang for the buck.

Getting a 20D with the 17-85IS is around ~$1900 so with the 350D combo that would provide (assuming I would spend the same cash equally on either bundle) then it affords me the 50mm 1.8 prime as well leaving me in the startes boat of:

20d with 17-85IS or
350d with 17-40L, 50mm 1.8 and Tam 2.8 28-75

So with that matchup it seems like the 350 should be the way to go based on versatility.

I am just starting out with SLRs and want to limit the initial purchase to be under $2K.
 
...on your strategy over time. Remember you are choosing an expandable system. Also, it'd help to see a beif description of your photo style/interests. If I had to choose 1 of those setups & could never add to my lens choices, I'd go xt & 17-40, personally, I'd make it the 17-85 IS or perhaps the 10-22.

If adding to my lens line up was only a few (3-6) months away, I'd get the 20d now, scrape together enough for the 50mm f1.8 ($75), and save like mad for a more competent lens.

What does the 20d have that you absolutely NEED in a body? Image quality is nearly the same. Do you shoot sports? 20d has 5 fps & faster focus. Do you require high ISO performance? The 20d is better in low light. Do you require a body that feels & handles like a traditional film slr? This really isn't a requirement, but I did have a prob w/the feel of plastic frame.

If there are more lenes in your near future, I'd go 20d, and did so myself. Get the 50mm f1.8 either way so you have a good, sharp, low light prime.
ziwi said:
Also in 350D forum...(get both forum perspectives)

Is it better to spent $1400 US on

20D with kit lens

XT with 17-40L

So essentially is it better to get the better camera with the kit
lens and save for better lenses or get the better lens with the
cheaper body and know that the lens is an investment where the
camera isn't necessarily one.

Thoughts?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
This would be my first SLR so the feel of it is not that important - I was on a Kodak and now a canon G3 so from that angle the Rebel would be more intuitive. I do mostly people/party, landscape / animals and kids - all just hobby - sports will come into play in a few years, but now if it just about recording life from a particular point of view.

I am pretty good on the post processing side of things so that is why I was looking into the bettr glass versus the kit or even the 17-85IS as it constantly gets mixed reviews.

Part of me says since I am moving from a G3 anything will be better no mattr what SLR - but I suffer from the analysis problem alot of us have and want to get the best value for the $$$.
 
With close to 40 years of high end camera experience I'd do it like this.

For about the same money I'd buy a good used 10D and 24-70 2.8L. Now you've got a high quality Canon DSLR AND one of the best Canon L-Series zooms ever made.

Here's the proof. Taken with the 10D and 24-70 2.8L. Note the sharpness, color, and saturation.







--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
http://GaryCoombs.com
My Profile contains my Equipment List

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams
 
...if I knew that w/in 6 months I would be able to afford the speakers I ultimately wanted. Granted my $1200 reciever is not going to acheive its potential w $40 speakers (cost of bundled 18-55mm), but if in 6 mo. I'd have enough cash for new speakers, then why not? I can start learning about my new stereo now and that might even effect my future choice of speskers.

On the other hand, if it was a gift from granny & I was heading off to college and 4 or 5 years of high quality poverty. I'd go w/the balanced system.
bullet1 said:
Would do you that?
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc
Click to expand...
 
The stereo vs speakers analogy works too. Also the cheap speakers cannot produce any better sound from the expensive stereo than a cheaper one anyway.

Camera bodies, like most modern electronics items, advance and depreciate rather quickly. The lenses (or the good speakers) do not change that much. A good set of L lenses will last 10, 20, 30 or more years.

A complex camera like the 20D takes time to learn and use properly to its full potential. As someone has mentioned, a used 10D or 300D could do the same for a beginner just fine.
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc
 
that every time this question comes up, the overwhelming majority votes: Rebel, L lens. Why are all here in the 20D forum then, and not in the Rebel forum? Or do we all have plenty of money for cameras and lenses of out choice? ;-)
--
Misha
 
we could afford a 20d & some good glass as well. I would imagine if you surveyed 20d owners, only a very small number would have the kit (18-55) lens only.

17-85 IS only is likely to be a much more prevelent.

Most 20d owners probably have 2 or more lenes. I'd imagine there's lot of rebel/single lens folks out there.
 
Jason said:
I know, I'm being a grammar ****, but it's NOT an investment.
Investments are things like stocks, bonds, etc. that make you money.

Your camera is an expense. Even if you use it for business as a
photographer, it's still an expense. The only way it'd be an
intelligent investment was if it didn't consistently depreciate in
value over time, which all camera bodies do.

Technically, things like education are not investments even though
it's frequently called "investing in yourself/your future/etc".
That's also an expense, albeit a worthwhile one.

Sorry, I realize that does very little to answer your question, I
just needed to get that out. My inner Linguistic Commando is now
sated. ;)

You're in a great position right now as the cheaper Rebel bodies
are very close in performance to the more expensive models. As
long as you treat the plastic body carefully, there shouldn't be a
reason it wouldn't last as long as one of the magnesium ones. If
you like the feel of the 350 in your hand, I'd say go for it.
Another option is to buy a used 10D, which are going for dirt cheap
these days.

Glass is a great thing to spend money on. It holds its value very
well, and the 17-40 will work on all EF and EF-S mount cameras.
It's not my personal favorite, (the 24-70 is what I'd use for my
kind of shooting) but it's a great lens. I'd always recommend
buying the best glass you can afford, then worrying about the body
after that. Those have an upgrade cycle of every 5 years. Lenses
can last you 30+ if you treat them well.

Good luck,
jb

--
--Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that
every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of
tolerance in the entire population.
--Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
Well I hate to be a grammar ****, but it could be deemed as an 'investment' - into suuporting the enjoyment of your hobby ;op
 
On a more serious note. It depends. If this is all you want to spend then get the XT and good glass. If it's a matter of just waiting a few weeks more to be able to get the 20D and the 17-40L, then get the 20D.
 
the folks asking that type of question have budgetary concerns (otherwise they'd just jump on the 20D, regardless of lens choices).

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.pbase.com/btullis

 
Bob Tullis said:
the folks asking that type of question have budgetary concerns
(otherwise they'd just jump on the 20D, regardless of lens choices).
Click to expand...
Don't we all? :) One can say OK, I can buy the 20D and 17-40L and 24-70L now, but I really want that 70-200 2.8L IS too... Should I go for the Rebel instead and use the saving toward the lens?

Budgetary concerns are usually subject to change - I can buy the kit lens now, but 6 months from now I'll want and have money to buy something more or better - but you will probably use your camera for some time to come.

--
Misha
 
Hello Gary,

first of all the pictures are really great, I'm sure there is a lot of talent behind the camera. I like the first a lot.

second may I ask why an 10D would be better than a Rebel? I'm interested in the "used body - outstanding lens" combination for the same price as "new body - okay lens"

Third was there a lot of post-processing in these pictures?

Sorry if these questions are newbish, I'm learning

Thanks very much

François
Gary Coombs said:
With close to 40 years of high end camera experience I'd do it like
this.

For about the same money I'd buy a good used 10D and 24-70 2.8L.
Now you've got a high quality Canon DSLR AND one of the best Canon
L-Series zooms ever made.

Here's the proof. Taken with the 10D and 24-70 2.8L. Note the
sharpness, color, and saturation.







--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
http://GaryCoombs.com
My Profile contains my Equipment List

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top