Suggestions on new Canon DSLR -- thinking 60D

[Northstar]

A slow super zoom covers all focal lengths but doesn't give you much control over exposure or depth of field, and you also compromise in terms of image quality

"covers all focal lengths" is a very important and an underrated feature.  It's great for mom's / dad's that don't want to change lenses(or carry multiple) all the time on vacation, at outdoor soccer/baseball, parks.

Especially for low light shooting, fast glass is important (and makes much more difference than the body)

agree with you here....I would add to my recommendation, for ALL indoor shooting get a fast 50 1.8 prime(in addition to the 18-200)...or if you think you'll shoot a lot of indoor sports/plays etc - then get the 85 1.8.  For good quality indoor images you really need a fast prime....a must.  If you go with the 60d, then the $125 50 1.8 would be great.   Get the 85 1.8 if you know you'll be shooting indoor sports / plays..etc.

I standby the 18-200....for most outdoor shots with decent light, it will work very well. 

[DB]

Like many others here, I was in a similar situation to you, bought a Rebel T2i with a kit lens, but did not learn much until I bought a 'nifty-fifty' 50mm f1.4 fast prime (which is a good walk around lens on a 1.6 crop). Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again. My 50mm lens cost a little more than half what my T2i cost. Quick rule of thumb: 50% of budget for body + 50% for your first lens (thereafter you'll spend a lot more than your camera cost on individual lenses...some day!).

[D_Rochat]

Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again.

Some will inevitably disagree, but I found this to be the truth. If I were you, I'd start with the 60D 18-135 or 18-200 kit. These lenses are just OK, but they'll allow you to find out what focal lengths you use the most and be able to make a much more sound decision when looking for upgrades in the future. I stick to fixed aperture lenses, but they are quite a bit more expensive. If and when you start acquiring L glass, your "all in one" kit lens will start to collect more dust. Just like anything else, I've found it's much more cheaper in the long run to get what you want in the first place rather than trying to save a few bucks with a cheaper purchase.

[briansquibb]

Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again.

Some will inevitably disagree, but I found this to be the truth. If I were you, I'd start with the 60D 18-135 or 18-200 kit. These lenses are just OK, but they'll allow you to find out what focal lengths you use the most and be able to make a much more sound decision when looking for upgrades in the future. I stick to fixed aperture lenses, but they are quite a bit more expensive. If and when you start acquiring L glass, your "all in one" kit lens will start to collect more dust. Just like anything else, I've found it's much more cheaper in the long run to get what you want in the first place rather than trying to save a few bucks with a cheaper purchase.

The best start lens are the 18-55 and 55-250 as they are very cheap and decent enough to use for a year or so. Once you start delivering good pictures with these is the time to think about upgrading.

[D_Rochat]

Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again.

Some will inevitably disagree, but I found this to be the truth. If I were you, I'd start with the 60D 18-135 or 18-200 kit. These lenses are just OK, but they'll allow you to find out what focal lengths you use the most and be able to make a much more sound decision when looking for upgrades in the future. I stick to fixed aperture lenses, but they are quite a bit more expensive. If and when you start acquiring L glass, your "all in one" kit lens will start to collect more dust. Just like anything else, I've found it's much more cheaper in the long run to get what you want in the first place rather than trying to save a few bucks with a cheaper purchase.

The best start lens are the 18-55 and 55-250 as they are very cheap and decent enough to use for a year or so. Once you start delivering good pictures with these is the time to think about upgrading.

I just looked up the cost of an 18-55 and 55-250 by themselves and I retract my statement. I'd go with what squibby said. It's not much more to buy body only plus those two lenses. A local retailer may even bundle them at a reduced rate for you.

[!Xabbu]

Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again.

Some will inevitably disagree, but I found this to be the truth. If I were you, I'd start with the 60D 18-135 or 18-200 kit. These lenses are just OK, but they'll allow you to find out what focal lengths you use the most and be able to make a much more sound decision when looking for upgrades in the future. I stick to fixed aperture lenses, but they are quite a bit more expensive. If and when you start acquiring L glass, your "all in one" kit lens will start to collect more dust. Just like anything else, I've found it's much more cheaper in the long run to get what you want in the first place rather than trying to save a few bucks with a cheaper purchase.

The best start lens are the 18-55 and 55-250 as they are very cheap and decent enough to use for a year or so. Once you start delivering good pictures with these is the time to think about upgrading.

I really have to disagree here - I got the 450D with the 18-55mm kit lens and IQ was abysmal. I know that this lens has been upgraded, but it seems to me like cheap lenses just don't do it. Why get a DSLR and then put a super cheap piece of glass in front of it? I'd rather suggest to go with the Tamron 17-50 non-IS or - even better - with the EF-S 17-55mm. I only used the kit lens for about 2 months and never touched it since - so, overall it was quite a waste of money (not a lot of money, but still a waste).

[briansquibb]

Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again.

Some will inevitably disagree, but I found this to be the truth. If I were you, I'd start with the 60D 18-135 or 18-200 kit. These lenses are just OK, but they'll allow you to find out what focal lengths you use the most and be able to make a much more sound decision when looking for upgrades in the future. I stick to fixed aperture lenses, but they are quite a bit more expensive. If and when you start acquiring L glass, your "all in one" kit lens will start to collect more dust. Just like anything else, I've found it's much more cheaper in the long run to get what you want in the first place rather than trying to save a few bucks with a cheaper purchase.

The best start lens are the 18-55 and 55-250 as they are very cheap and decent enough to use for a year or so. Once you start delivering good pictures with these is the time to think about upgrading.

I really have to disagree here - I got the 450D with the 18-55mm kit lens and IQ was abysmal. I know that this lens has been upgraded, but it seems to me like cheap lenses just don't do it. Why get a DSLR and then put a super cheap piece of glass in front of it? I'd rather suggest to go with the Tamron 17-50 non-IS or - even better - with the EF-S 17-55mm. I only used the kit lens for about 2 months and never touched it since - so, overall it was quite a waste of money (not a lot of money, but still a waste).

The reviews on the 16-55 are very good, and from experience the reviews are correct - IQ is very reasonable when taking pictures stopped down to f/5.6

Carrying your argument forward why not put a 24-70 II on the 60D rather than 'cheap' ef-s lens like the 17-55?

[xps]

My personal experience is, that the 60D was my favorite, when I was waiting for the 5D MKIII (which is a little bit too expensive for me by now).
In my family, three Persons own an 60D and one an 600D.
It´s image quality ist quite good, if you use EF-S lenses or lenses that are designed for Crop Cameras. My older lenses (all "L") as the 17-35mmL 2.8 are suffering from chromatic aberation and being not as sharp as the lenses that are designed for crop Cameras.
The two lenses that you want to buy are ok. In my opinion good shots are more depending on the knowledge od the photographer than on technique.
The AF is working well, but if the AF has to be very fast, there is an big difference to the AF of the 7D. But the 7D costed twice the price of the 60D.

The "minus" of the 60D is the quality range of the picture sensor. My 60D had  quite big noise if the ISO was higher than 400. After changing the Sensor (red stripes in the picture), the image quality is much better. The 60D of my son is not very sharp, but has superior colors...

Forget the live view mode if the object is moving. It is working much to slow.

The 600D has an much better image quality. Think of buying the 650D. It is worth waiting. The 600D of my daughter has an superior image quality to my camera. In landscape, portrait and macro fotography the pics are very sharp and detailed. The AF is a little bit slower than that one my 60D has.


Overall: The 60D is (for its price) a very good camera. Think of the 650D, maybe its an good alternative

[briansquibb]

Overall: The 60D is (for its price) a very good camera. Think of the 650D, maybe its an good alternative

Where can I buy a 650D?

[scrappydog]

One last question, the recommended lenses included some EF and EF-S.  While I know that both fit the 60D, I'm less clear on what the impacts are to the perceived focal length and/or quality...To the extent possible, I'd prefer to lean to EF lenses purely for the long-term reuse should I make the jump to a FF body.

The 10-22 is my only EF-S lens (great lens, by the way).  I do not notice any difference in its operation when compared to my EF lenses.  Like you, I erred on the side of EF lenses because I figured I would go full frame once I settled in with the 60D and knew what I wanted in my next body.

As for the comment about extra chromatic aberration with EF lenses over EF-S lenses, I have not noticed this.  All of my lenses have CA, although the worst culprit is my 85 f/1.8.  CA is fixable in post.

[scrappydog]

Scrappydog mentioned a refurb camera from Adorama, try looking at getting a refurb from Canon direct.  A 60d is 800$ and if you do the CLP with a broken $10 ebay camera you will get 20% off the camera plus whatever lenses you get at the same time.

One consideration is tax, shipping, and the warranty.  If you purchase from Adorama, if you are not from New York, you are not charged tax or shipping (assuming you are in the USA; not sure if free shipping applies for international).  If you buy from Canon Direct, you are charged both.  Also, Adorama provides a 1-year warranty whereas Canon Direct provides a 3-month warranty.

The Canon Loyalty Program (CLP) is a good deal if you have a non-working Canon camera that you are willing to part with.  They will waive shipping, I think, so you will save there.  Tax will still be added though.

[elflord]

I really have to disagree here - I got the 450D with the 18-55mm kit lens and IQ was abysmal. I know that this lens has been upgraded, but it seems to me like cheap lenses just don't do it.

Take a look at the photozone reviews. The upgraded lens is substantially better. I agree with your comments though that it doesn't make much sense to spend close to $1000 on a camera body, then get a $100 kit lens. I started out with a Rebel and spent about twice the cost of the body on glass.

[elflord]

The reviews on the 16-55 are very good, and from experience the reviews are correct - IQ is very reasonable when taking pictures stopped down to f/5.6

Carrying your argument forward why not put a 24-70 II on the 60D rather than 'cheap' ef-s lens like the 17-55?

For any fixed budget, there is an optimal way to allocate it, which lies somewhere between spending $0 on the body and spending it all on the body.

Now what works best will vary (depends on the person and what they're photographing), but when a beginner wants to spend four times as much on the body as they do on glass, it's usually because they don't understand how little difference the body makes and how much difference the glass makes --  and usually, they would end up with a better kit by trying to find a way to spend less on the body (or finding some more dough for decent glass).  Because of the relative rates of depreciation, it's much easier to pick up a bargain basement body than glass.

[briansquibb]

Personally I would go for the 24-105

[danski0224]

As for lenses, I've been looking at the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS & the 55-250mm f/4-5.6.  My reasoning is that  at this point, I want to limit the number of lenses to choose from while out but still have flexibility for multiple shots.  I know that there are better options, particularly when looking at fixed focal length lenses, but I don't think that I want to go down that route just yet.

I don't think you have mentioned a budget and there is a whole lot of overlap in those lens choices.

I also don't know what you are getting in a 60D that is better or more useful for your uses than the T3i.

A EF-S 17-55 f 2.8 is about the same money as the two lenses listed plus a bit (or, sub the T3i).

There really is a big difference between f4 and f2.8. It could mean the difference between using flash or not.

The 24-105 f4 also gets good comments.

I suggest having something lower than 24mm on a crop body. I happen to like the 16-35 II, but if you have no plans or need to go to a FF camera, then I'd suggest the 17-55 f 2.8.

You should also budget for a separate flash.