DSLR Newbie

[JCI]

Hi all,
Am about to take the plunge into the dslr arena and need advice re equipment. I will be mainly doing wildlife, landscape and macro photography (plus taking shots of the family!). I also want to shoot video.

Considering either 60d or 600d (ruling out 7d because of price).
In terms of video is worth going with the 600d because of its zoom capabilities? If not I will probably go with 60d for obvious reasons - better body, AF, FPS, battery life, FPS, viewfinder. But just wondering for videoing wildlife would the 600d zoom be a biggie?

Lenses:

For wildlife - Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens
Will a 1.4 teleconverter work with this (will AF still function?)

For macro - Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM Lens
Probably can't go wrong with this.

Now - i wish to get a third lens for landscape/general usage and am considering the following:
Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM Lens
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens

Any advice on these two lenses? Given the APS-C sensor at their widest the lenses are 27mm/24mm respectively.

Considering the following tripod and head:
Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 Carbon Fibre Tripod
Manfrotto 324RC2 Joystick Head

Any feedback on these?

Also does everybody put a UV or polarizer filter on the lenses for protection? Which one do you recommend and which brand?

I'm on a budget so cannot afford more than3 lenses or faster lenses than the ones above.

Any help will be much appreciated.
Cheers,
JCI

 

[JCI]

Anybody? Please!

 

[CowGummy]

I'm not wildlife shooter myself, but initial thoughts on your list of lenses has me thinking that it might just be a little overkill... I think if you're serious about the wildlife stuff you should consider the 7D - the AF alone would make it the obvious choice for that. Having too much gear to start with can confuse things slightly. That's might thoughts anyways.
As for the filters: Yes, I personally do stick a UV filter on all my lenses for protection purposes and all mine are Hoya ones.

Enjoy taking the plunge!

 

[squarebox]

I'd recommend the 60d over the 600d because it has a better AF system.

For lens, i have the 100mm macro lens, but wish i had the L as the IS would have been nice along with the IF (internal focusing)

For landscapes on the ASP-C you can't go wrong with the 10-22. That lens is just amazing. Better quality than the 16-35mm L from what i hear. I have it and during my trip to iceland that lens was on my camera for everything except spelunking.

 

[Random Orbits]

Macro: 100L is a fine lens. I have it and love it. IS helps a lot when you're doing loose macro shots or for general photography.

General Purpose: I vote for 15-85 over 17-40. The 15-85 provides better IQ and is more versatile. 17-40 is typically used on FF for landscape (f/8-f/11); otherwise its corners will be mushy.

Filters: Some prefer using hoods only, but I think most people prefer using filters and hoods. I'd rather clean a filter rather than the front element. Skylight and UV filters can both be used to protect lens front elements, although UV filters are easier to find, so people generally go with these. Multi-coated filtered perform better than single coated filters b/c a single coat filters cannot cover the entire visible spectrum. Hoyas and B+W are popular brands. Do not leave polarizers on your lens. They block up to 2 stops worth of light, so only use them when necessary (plus they cost more than UV filters).

 

[Random Orbits]

For landscapes on the ASP-C you can't go wrong with the 10-22. That lens is just amazing. Better quality than the 16-35mm L from what i hear. I have it and during my trip to iceland that lens was on my camera for everything except spelunking.

I think they're pretty close, but the 10-22 is about half the price! : Too bad Canon didn't make the 10-22 a constant f/2.8.

 

[Aperture]

I also would say go for 60d instead of 600d for the features

For landscape lens I would go for 17 - 40 mm L lens as L lens image quality is much better compared to non L lenses

You also need a good portrait lens as you said you would shoot portraits

You may not need a very fast lens for landscape photography but you need a good fast lens for family pictures

24 - 70 f/2.8 or 70 - 200 f/2.8 are good portrait lens to consider

 

[nitsujwalker]

The 17-40 lens will get you many different answers! I personally love mine though as some say the corners aren't incredibly sharp but I love the weather sealing as I take it climbing with me. Also if when I upgrade to fullframe (from 7D) it is generally considered a good ultra-wide lens and VERY light compared to others. If you don't care about the sealing (irrelevant if the body isn't sealed) or upgrading to fullframe anytime soon then I would vote for the 10-22 as it is claimed to be very sharp and a great all around wide lens. The 100-400 is a great lens too, I've been looking at picking one up. As a note, some people complain about getting a sharp copy while others say their's is fine. Something to think about. You'll have a great time with whatever you get!

So I guess my vote is--- 10-22, 60D, and 100-400. And I don't know much about the tripods

 

[well_dunno]

With regards to 60D/600D I do not have any experience with either of them but if it were me, I would go with 60D.

Do you have any intention to go FF after a few years? If you do, 17-40 on a crop body as a general purpose lens could work. If you do not have any such plans, ef-s 15-85 or even 17-55 f2.8 might be good choices. 10-22 is a very good lens too...

An addition: Tokinas might be interesting to look at for wide angle too. I used to have a 12-24 f/4 for aps-c bodies was happy with it even though it did have CA...

 

[Positron]

Do what most newbies do, internet research. Google is your friend. Then come back with more educated questions.

Uh, the original poster seems like he has done his homework. These are not uneducated questions. Moving on...

You really can't go wrong with the 600D, and if Landscape and Macro is your thing, I'd go with that and save the rest of the money for a future full-frame upgrade, which benefits those shooting situations more than some.

The 15-85 will be better on crop than the 17-40. I would only get the 17-40 if you plan to do a FF upgrade soon, because the 15-85 will maintain its value quite well for resale if you ever move up. This goes for any high-end lens, really. The EF-S 17-55 and 10-22 are the same way.

The 100-400 I have never used, but I know a lot of people who love it. I believe even with the teleconverter it will still focus on all bodies (all EF lenses focus with the aperture wide open and only stop down to take the shot). However, I don't know from first-hand experience, so take it with a grain of salt.

I've heard great things about that tripod. Don't know much about the head.

The only thing I can suggest really is that landscape/macro and wildlife usually have conflicting interests. If wildlife matters to you, I'd go with the 7D and downgrade something else (maybe the 100mm L to non-L?). If the landscape/macro is more important, maybe grab a used/refurbished 5D2 and go off-brand on the long lens. The 600D is great, but it's definitely a compromise if you want to do both, since it has neither the 7D's blazing speed and AF, nor the 5D-series's full-frame wide/IQ/bokeh dominance.

Edit: Also, 400 x 1.6 x 1.4 x 10 = 8960mm effective, which is insane. That focal length is more practical for astronomy than videos of wildlife. 400 x 1.6 will already be enough for most cases; when you add the 1.4 TC you're probably at overkill for most wildlife situations. Also avoiding camera shake at that focal length is going to be a challenge; probably impossible without full-timing the tripod.

 

[JCI]

Firstly - many thanks to everybody who has replied...much appreciated.
To Get_A_Grip - apologies if my post upset you - I know constant postings about equipment advice can be annoying......BUT considering I only joined the forum yesterday and it was my first posting...initially I did find your posting quite aggressive and insulting but then I'm just oversensitive. I have spent many months researching equipment which I thought was obvious from my posting. Anyway moving on....

Budget - I don't really want to spend more than €5,000 - that's for body, lenses, tripod/head, flash, filters and bag.

Having read the comments, I will probably ditch the idea of the 1.4 extender. I just hope 100-400 x 1.6 is enough for wildlife. Only other affordable option would be a Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 but not sure how they compare for IQ or AF.

With regard to landscape I had thought about the 10-22mm but was hoping to try and get a lens that would cover landscapes and bridge the gap upto where the 100-400mm starts.

I have no plans to go FF in the forseeable future so it is good to see the 15-85 getting good comments. If IQ is as good as 17-40mm L then it might be the way to go.

My internet research had thrown up mixed reviews for the 10-22mm so it is good to get good feedback on that one here from end-users.

My interest is definitely split 50/50 between landscape and wildlife (wildlife being birds, mammals, insects, plants, flowers - hence the macro requirement as well).

Lastly - maybe you can offer opinions on this - some friends have ditched their 100-400L lenses and replaced them with 300L F4 combined with a 1.4 extender - apparently this combo gives better IQ?

 

[Random Orbits]

OK no one here seems to have even read the OP. So....

First... you said you are on a budget... how much? This is critical. Because all those comments re: 10-22 versus 17-40 could very well be moot due to cost. Additionally, manfrotto anything is expensive.

Second, what do you plan on doing with pics and video? Print pic's? At what resolution do you need? What printer? Not printing?

So before everyone starts giving their opinions you need to define the parameters in what you can afford, what you are doing with the pics/video, etc.

So no, I am not being a jerk, just being more realistic. just sayin...

I think you can figure out the OP's budget based on the options he's given. His max budget is 60D + 100-400L + 100L + 17-40L.

 

[bigblue1ca]

Do what most newbies do, internet research. Google is your friend. Then come back with more educated questions.

Darn shame they just got rid of the voting options recently.

I know you say in another post you were not a jerk and just being realistic. Well realistically your statement above comes across like being a jerk.

If you don't like the way the OP asked his questions, ask him to expand on them in order to get an idea what he's after. Give him some parameters, whatever, offer to help or point him in the right direction. Don't just say come back with more educated questions, that's just plain rude and arrogant.

 

[Seamus]

Do what most newbies do, internet research. Google is your friend. Then come back with more educated questions.

Darn shame they just got rid of the voting options recently.

I know you say in another post you were not a jerk and just being realistic. Well realistically your statement above comes across like being a jerk.

If you don't like the way the OP asked his questions, ask him to expand on them in order to get an idea what he's after. Give him some parameters, whatever, offer to help or point him in the right direction. Don't just say come back with more educated questions, that's just plain rude and arrogant.

Good points bigblue +1. Without karma though members do a pretty good job keeping posters in line. Good job!

 

[ScottyP]

Hi all,
Am about to take the plunge into the dslr arena and need advice re equipment. I will be mainly doing wildlife, landscape and macro photography (plus taking shots of the family!). I also want to shoot video.

You are asking for basically everything all at once, right at the start. Wildlife, which you define as both animals (zoom) and bugs (macro), plus landscape (wide) and shots of the family (portrait). If you have never had a DSLR before, you might want to pick just 1 or 2 of the above to start, and get used to the camera before plunging into the others. Cheers for the ambition, but unless you have an incredible amount of time to devote the hobby, you might never get enough time on each of them to get good.

For your general purpose/landscape, I would suggest the 15-85 over the 17-40 just because the range is so much broader, and because 15-85 is rated very well. Unless you think you will go full frame and won't be able to use EF-S. Of course if you do that you will take a beating on the long end of all your lenses by losing the 1.6 crop factor.

I'd also get a flash if I were you. The build-in flash is really not going to do nice things for your photos (shadows/glare) because all it can do is shine directly at your subject. And it does not have a great deal of range anyway. And if you have a long lens mounted, you will find it does not stick up far enough to flash over the end of some lenses, so you get a little shadow at the bottom of your photos from the end of your lens. Even without a lens hood sometimes.

Best wishes and good luck!

 

[PhotoGib]

Before I went FF, I was married to my 10-22. For me this was a must-have lens for the wide and ultra-wide shots.