new lens and camerabody

[aganda]

hello everybody, i´m new here! was reading this good place and stopped for a cuestion.
i'm interested in buying a new camera (first one) I have saved up to 3000 euros to spend on this!!!!
but first wanted to know for (photos tooken on landscape, children and sports) which should be good lens and from there a good camera.
my friends always say first choose two good lens and then the body of the camera (nikon-canon ??? ).

please with your experience what should I choose

 

[bycostello]

you could get a Canon EOS 600D Digital SLR Camera with 18-135mm IS Lens for less than €1000. With the money you save, spend that on training and you take way better pictures than someone witha 5dmk2 in auto mode.

 

[aganda]

bycostello fast answering, thanks for your information.

 

[Peter Canon]

I just got a 7D and an EF28mm f/1.8 USM lens. I am very happy with it and can take great photos in low light.

Next I am planning for the 70-300L once I am more confident with the features.

The 7D is very solid and feels better than the 600D or 60D. I wanted to get a 60D at first so I rented one and I found they removed the joystick and changed the buttons.

I would suggest you rent a 60D and a 7D for a day then make your choice.

 

[awinphoto]

A cheaper body and a superb lens will do you better in the long run than an expensive body and a bad lens. Like what bycostello said, learning how to use it and get the most out of the camera/lens is crucial, especially if this is your first camera gear. I would recommend the 60D or maybe even the rebel t2I or t3i and a 24-70L or 24-105L. If you wanted to get even more zooming range you could consider the 35-350L but IMHO the sharpness isn't as good as the first 2 lenses mentioned. The 17-55mm IS is no slouch and is really good on cameras such as the rebels and the 60D, however construction is iffy and if you ever upgrade to a full frame camera such as the 5D or the 1D series, then it isnt compatible whereas the other L lenses are. I would think you could pick up a 60D and a 17-55 for under 2000 euros and use the rest on training dvd's or classes?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

hello everybody, i´m new here! was reading this good place and stopped for a cuestion.
i'm interested in buying a new camera (first one) I have saved up to 3000 euros to spend on this!!!!
but first wanted to know for (photos tooken on landscape, children and sports) which should be good lens and from there a good camera.
my friends always say first choose two good lens and then the body of the camera (nikon-canon ??? ).

please with your experience what should I choose

The less expensive bodies with the kit lenses like the 18-55mm IS are great learner cameras. There is no such thing as a bad lens, only bad photographers. good ones can take super photos with any of the Canon or Nikon DSLR's and the kit lenses.

As to expensive lenses, we all like fine tools, you pay more money for the better construction, faster apertures, and less distortion at the edges, but those are fine points that only a expert can pick out.

The base camera body and the starter lenses are well matched for each other. Start with them, and learn to take great images, perhaps add a 30mm f/2 prime for low light situations.

Then, as you discover the type of photography you like best, you will know where you would like improvements to your lens collection. There are many general purpose lenses, but why spend thousands and find you bought the wrong one.

Like everyone else, I have my favorites, but, they might not suit you. I learned the hard way by buying lenses that turned out to be wrong for wha I do, and it cost me a lot of money.

 

[awinphoto]

True, while "there's no bad lens, there's bad photographers", he also stated he had 3000 euros saved up and if he had that money to invest in photography gear/training, he might as well get the best bang for your buck and the 24-105 is going to suit him longer and be more consistent than the 18-55 from shot to shot to shot. I will give my advise that I gave in other threads that you should invest money in training whether it be dvd's, books, online tutorials, kelby training, etc... You can get a lot of camera/lens for 3000 euros but if you dont know what to do with them, they might as well be a paperweight. If you are going to be a casual photographer and looking for a camera to shoot in auto and plan on using the camera once or so a month, then a cheapie rebel xt and 18-55 would suit your needs completely... If you want to be serious and plan on putting in the time and effort to become an advanced hobbyist or semi pro to pro... Once you go L lenses, you will never go back... It's like a disease and all your gear will eventually become L lenses (thousands of dollars/euros later) =)

 

[Haydn1971]

I jumped in about 3 years back with a 450D + 18-55mm IS kit lens and a 70-300mm non L lens... Great I thought, I got to grips with the options, first with auto modes, moving into aperture priority and manual modes over a couple of years, then started branching out with filters, then a few months later a better walkaround lens - 15-85mm, which is great, then recently a 50mm f1.4 prime....

I've still got the 450D, but hardly use the 70-300mm, so my advice would be to get a decent walkaround lens with a body, don't buy a body with a kit lens, it's gonna end up in your camera bag forever once you get a decent walkabout. Then after several months, check your images, are you going long or wide, landscape, sports, portrait, etc - once you figure out what you take photos of, use the remaining money you have to service your lens and filter needs.

As to the camera... I'm hearing that the 60D isn't much more to buy than the 600D, going for a 7D or better now will be a waste of your cash. If you need to upgrade later to a 7D or full frame, the old body will still be useful as a backup, or take anywhere camera that you can use in places where you don't wish to take your most costly kit.

 

[awinphoto]

I've still got the 450D, but hardly use the 70-300mm, so my advice would be to get a decent walkaround lens with a body, don't buy a body with a kit lens, it's gonna end up in your camera bag forever once you get a decent walkabout. Then after several months, check your images, are you going long or wide, landscape, sports, portrait, etc - once you figure out what you take photos of, use the remaining money you have to service your lens and filter needs.

I agree with most everything you said... a couple things to think about is lenses, on average, especially really good ones, will stay in your bag for many many years (and camera bodies for that matter)... You can get a kit lens and "learn" but they tend not to keep their value once your ready to upgrade and it (especailly once you move on and can compare better), aren't as good of lenses.

Personally I like the xxD series over the rebels because of the LCD's, ergonomics, size, etc etc however it is a personal matter and perhaps thats where you should go to a camera store and hold the different bodies, do your research and find out the differences and weight the price differences to see if for an extra $100-200 a top LCD, stronger body, ergonomics, etc...is worth it for you or not. To some it will, to some it will be seen as a simple "splurge"... Only you can answer that. Lastly bodies get replaced every 12-18 months (for consumer grade bodies) and lenses on average can go much much longer before upgrades, sometimes decades, see the 17-40mm L. If you had the option in your budget, spend more money on lenses than bodies.

 

[Loswr]

please with your experience what should I choose

I'd recommend not spending the entire amount on camera + lenses. Get yourself a decent tripod and ballhead (e.g. Manfrotto).

For the uses you indicate, a 7D would seem like the best bet. The 5DII is a wonderful camera (and the 5DII + 24-105mm kit is within your budget), but not ideally suited to moving subjects like kids and sports.

I agree about skipping the kit lens. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a great lens for the 7D. The 24-105mm is very good as well, but on an APS-C camera (7D, 60D, 600D, etc.), 24mm isn't wide angle, and you mention landscapes as a subject. You could pair the 24-105mm with something like the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for a nice kit. I'd definitely also recommend a fast prime, and my personal recommendation would be the 85mm f/1.8 - it's sharp, fast-focusing, great for sports and also portraits.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

True, while "there's no bad lens, there's bad photographers", he also stated he had 3000 euros saved up and if he had that money to invest in photography gear/training, he might as well get the best bang for your buck and the 24-105 is going to suit him longer and be more consistent than the 18-55 from shot to shot to shot. I will give my advise that I gave in other threads that you should invest money in training whether it be dvd's, books, online tutorials, kelby training, etc... You can get a lot of camera/lens for 3000 euros but if you dont know what to do with them, they might as well be a paperweight. If you are going to be a casual photographer and looking for a camera to shoot in auto and plan on using the camera once or so a month, then a cheapie rebel xt and 18-55 would suit your needs completely... If you want to be serious and plan on putting in the time and effort to become an advanced hobbyist or semi pro to pro... Once you go L lenses, you will never go back... It's like a disease and all your gear will eventually become L lenses (thousands of dollars/euros later) =)

I don't disagree totally, I have a 24-105mm l and love it, but for a 1.6 crop, it was not always wide enough, so my 17-55 gots lots of use.

If the op finds that he needs to take photos of large groups where there is limited space to back up, he will have obtained the wrong tool, and need a wider or perhaps faster lens. Paying a extra $100 for a kit with 18-55 IS is not a bad investment, it can always be sold for close to that amount, while, if he needs a 16-35mm L or a 70-200mm L, rather than a 24-105mm L, he will take a bigger hit

Investing in training first (or even after you get a camera), is a absolutely excellent idea.

The other facets of photography such as lighting, tripods, heads, etc also gobble up money.

 

[aganda]

hey yes this is realy a good and all kind of opinions. what i'm reading here is that lens choose are most important.

1.- first of all, i love lanscape wide angle pictures, trekking is my favouret (all i can when permited) and most of the moments when i stand looking to presious colourfull northern basque lands, small old towns, it comes up to my mind that if waist non-snapshot.

CANON EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (€1 250)

2.- inside pictures not permited flash in caves due paintings values. what kind of lens to be used with soft light in those caves?

CANON EF 28mm f/1.8 USM(€420)
CANON EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (€320)

3.- kids running in a playground
CANON EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM (€850)

what lens should choosen so?

 

[awinphoto]

Indeed, the lens selection is one of the more important facets of photography, as well as practice practice practice so you learn how to make the most of your tools. You have a nice selection of lenses... on the wide end you can pick up the 16-35 which is a very good lens, however if you are also considering, the 17-55, both F2.8, they are a bit redundant. The difference is primarily the 17-55 gives you a tad more reach on the 55 end than 35 on the first lens. Also the 16-35 has a metal body and weathersealed whereas the 17-55 is a strong plastic and not weathersealed. If you're kinda rough with your gear, then the 16-35 may be the smarter option, however the 17-55 would be a good all around lens, just dont bang it around too much. Also, the 17-55, i'm not positive if it comes with a lens hood, (the 16-35 does, all L lenses does), and on the 17 end of the lens, you will want a lens hood to prevent sun flare. I would also consider the 2 fast lenses... I'm not well versed on the 28 1.8, however the 50mm 1.4 is an old design and there have been rumors for years about it getting a facelift, however it hasn't come to be yet. It also has an old AF system which requires patience. Anyone who has the 28 1.8 that can vouch for it? I'm not sure if it has a micro motor AF like the 50 1.4 or if it's ring usm. If the AF is better, then I'd recommend the 28mm. If you wanted a 3rd lens, you can add a 24-105 L to add a bit of reach on the long end. The 70-300's tend to be a tad soft unless you get the latest IS version... I've heard of happy owners of that lens however people tend to love or hate this lens. For the same price of that lens, you can get a 70-200mm F4 L lens. You lose some reach but get a better construction and very good optics. Dont forget to practice practice practice to learn to make the most of your gear and prevent buyers remorse.

 

[Loswr]

what i'm reading here is that lens choose are most important.

Well, yes - lens choice is important. But, lens choice depends on body choice, i.e. what you really need to determine is what focal lengths you need. You love wide angle pictures...but if you're getting an APS-C body (i.e. not a 5DII), then you need to be looking at something wider than the 16-35mm. An EF-S 10-22mm on an APS-C camera will give the same angle of view as the 16-35mm lens on a FF camera like the 5DII.

I'd see no point in owning both the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - they are essentially the same focal length. Ok, let me rephrase that, since I actually do own both the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. There's no point in owning both to use them both on the same body (I use the 16-35mm on my 5DII for ultrawide shots, and the 17-55mm as a walkaround zoom lens on my 7D). If you decide on an APS-C camera, the 17-55mm is the better choice.

For low light use, again body choice matters - 28mm on APS-C is ~45mm on FF. In that situation, wider is probably better (easier handholding, since you probably can't use a tripod, either). But guess what - cave paintings don't move, and that's where IS helps a lot (IS only helps with static subjects). The EF-S 17-55mm's IS system is rated for 3 stops of stabilization, meaning in terms of handholding, you'd have the equivalent of an f/1.0 lens - a full stop better than even the 50/1.4, with the added benefit of multiple focal lengths. If you wanted to shoot your kids running around in front of those paintings, a fast prime would be needed, but for static subjects handheld, an IS lens is much better.

 

[ronderick]

Jumping on the bandwagon here (albeit a bit late), and here's my 2 cents...

@aganda:

So with a budget of 3000 Euros (which is roughly 4200 USD), I'd ask whether you're planning on future upgrades or just "that's it!" approach. Assuming that's all you're going to spend on gears...

My suggestion:
- Canon EOS 7D (USD 1700)
- 24-105mm (USD 1150)*
- 10-22mm (USD 840)

*you can also use the 17-55 f/2.8 (1100 USD) instead of the 24-105 if you want a faster lens here

OK, now with the above lineup, you'll still get some cash left for a decent tripod (neuro suggests Manfrotto; I'd say go for a Gitzo if it's withing your range - either one would work) and a cable release.

With these gears, you should be able to handle most landscape scenes while still fast enough to handle the movement of kids.

Now, if you are thinking about dealing with the low-ligt situation, you might have to sacrifice one of the lenses to go for a fast prime. If you go with the 7D, you will have to factor in the x1.6 crop factor. In this case, you can go with the 28mm (don't know much about that lens), or you can go all the way to the 24 f/1.4L II. Again, with the crop factor, the 24 will become a 38, so you're still OK for narrow and poorly lit places like the cave you mentioned.

Alternatively, if you can sacrifice the need of taking fast action pictures, there's always the 5d2 with 24-105 kit set at 3300 USD. In this case, a FF body with 50mm f/1.4 (410 USD) is more affordable and would work for the cave shot since there's no crop factor to consider.

Again, I think the "core" gear u'll need is the camera and a standard zoom, may it be a 7D+17-55, 7D+24-105, or 5D2+24-105. The rest of the pckage will have to depend on ur priorities - if you choose landscape, the 10-22 or 16-35; fast prime there's 24 f/1.4, ur 28 f/1.8, or 50 f/1.4.

However (I'm repeating myself again), a durable tripod and cable release is pretty much a must for landscape photogrphers, so you might want to consider it.

 

[bycostello]

oh and btw, to add to my previous answer.... you probably want to look at a flash and some kind of trigger e.g. a 580exII and an ST-e2 (and that might take you into light modifiers too, a cheap umbrella a good starting point)

 

[aganda]

thanks to every one again... OK, yes probably i wil decline for a CANON 7D(€1 305)

Dont forget to practice practice practice to learn to make the most of your gear and prevent buyers remorse.

yes believe me that i'm learning and want to practice. this is why i decided to commence with a good material therefore i saved €3000. this will be my hobby in the future. my daily savings each euro goes to a old cookie-can

But, lens choice depends on body choice

OK, yes probably i wil decline for a CANON 7D(€1 305) because i start choosing, before meeting this wonderfull forum, on a NIKON D7000 body(€1.045) and
NIKON D7000 KIT 18-200 VRII (€1 610).
so in the future my idea is to upgrde to a 5D (two bodys).

if he needs a 16-35mm L or a 70-200mm L, rather than a 24-105mm L, he will take a bigger hit
Investing in training first (or even after you get a camera), is a absolutely excellent idea.
The other facets of photography such as lighting, tripods, heads, etc also gobble up money.

My doubts are like this...

first buy?
> CANON 7D [1.035 eur]
> CANON EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (€999)
> lighting, tripods, heads...

second buy?
> CANON EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (€1 250)

third buy
> CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (€1 199)



please, which could be your opinion

 

[Ghostdive]

Ii would skip the 24-105 and go for the 24-70 and if you like, go later for an 70-200 or 70-300.
I think it makes no sense, to have two lens in the same range. But depends on you needs.

 

[awinphoto]

Ii would skip the 24-105 and go for the 24-70 and if you like, go later for an 70-200 or 70-300.
I think it makes no sense, to have two lens in the same range. But depends on you needs.

Nonsense... The only reason to go for the 24-70 is if you want the extra speed, no stabilization, and a bad back carrying the beast. It's a good lens but the 24-105 is a very good all around lens with ok wide end (36-170mm roughly) and decent long end... Then he can throw on the 16-35 and 70-200 for situational photography. That's the route I am in motion for going with Full Frame, i just need the friggen 5D mark III to come out... it's a good think i'm patient and my money gets to compound interest until it's announced/released.

 

[Orangutan]

... it's a good think i'm patient and my money gets to compound interest until it's announced/released.

Where do you get interest on your money these days?