Digital SLR choice, Canon 50D for £1099?

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f3.5-5.6-IS&ProductID=5703

IS=Image Stabilisation.

Everyone knows that sigma/etc lenses are cheap and ground from knaff glass relative to canon and nikon lenses. Lets give the guy some sound advice here.

When you start doing SLR photography get good at photography with a entry level camera, 1000/450D and not the 50D which is a prosumer model really. First of all is its size. The 50D is large relative to the 450/500D due to the idea of plonking a massive 400MM lens on it for balancing. The 18-200 lens is designed for the smaller cameras now whereas 50/5D are large for a reason, balance when putting a big lens on the mother.

Learn about SLR photography with a good entry level camera. Do not get carried away by the technology, its useless unless you are a good photographer.
 
I know what you all think about the 60D release date but I'm merely repeating what I was told in good faith by one of the shop staff. She did seem to be pretty competent and knew what she was talking about.

I think I'm best off doing some more research on lenses and see what second hand prices are like for the 40D etc. Can anyone recommend forums for 2nd hand kit (I know there's a few in the sticky thread, but a link to ones with good 2nd hand kit would be handy)

I'd prefer to get a decent setup to start with and learn with it rather than learn on a 450 then upgrade to the 40d and have to learn to find all the settings again and also adjust to the increase in size of the body etc etc.

I like the idea of a 18-200mm lens due to not having to change lesnses frequently although I appreciate there may be a trade off in terms of quality. I think I'd like at least a 2-300mm lense for motorsport so I can zoom up close.

From reading the above am I right that I'd be better off with a 40D (new or 2nd hand), a 17-55 lens, USM if I can stretch to it, then also getting a 70-200 or 70-300mm.

Can anyone recommend a good 70-200 or 70-300mm lense, either canon / tamron / sigma (from what I've read they are the 3 real competitors?)

Thanks for the feedback, it's been good to bounce ideas off everyone. I think I'm gonna pass up the 50D for now whilst I do more research.
 
the sigma 70-200 is meant to be a great lens but if i were in the market for a 70-200 (and I will be shortly) then it'd have to be a canon f4 IS, either new (£950ish) or 2nd hand (£700ish). Lens are expensive these days unfortunately.
 
morfmedia said:
From reading the above am I right that I'd be better off with a 40D (new or 2nd hand), a 17-55 lens, USM if I can stretch to it, then also getting a 70-200 or 70-300mm.

Can anyone recommend a good 70-200 or 70-300mm lense, either canon / tamron / sigma (from what I've read they are the 3 real competitors?)

Thanks for the feedback, it's been good to bounce ideas off everyone. I think I'm gonna pass up the 50D for now whilst I do more research.
Click to expand...

40D + 17-55 IS USM + 70-200 f4 L would be great, but second hand that's going to be more like £1300-1400 really. The 70-200 f4 L can be had for under £400 second hand but the 17-55 is going to set you back a fair bit more. You might want to consider a cheaper "walkaround" lens depending on which you think you will use the most.

Given you are new to photography the 40D could be a bit of overkill and you could save a bit of money getting a 450D but I don't think there's too much in it.
 
morfmedia said:
I know what you all think about the 60D release date but I'm merely repeating what I was told in good faith by one of the shop staff. She did seem to be pretty competent and knew what she was talking about.

I think I'm best off doing some more research on lenses and see what second hand prices are like for the 40D etc. Can anyone recommend forums for 2nd hand kit (I know there's a few in the sticky thread, but a link to ones with good 2nd hand kit would be handy)

I'd prefer to get a decent setup to start with and learn with it rather than learn on a 450 then upgrade to the 40d and have to learn to find all the settings again and also adjust to the increase in size of the body etc etc.

I like the idea of a 18-200mm lens due to not having to change lesnses frequently although I appreciate there may be a trade off in terms of quality. I think I'd like at least a 2-300mm lense for motorsport so I can zoom up close.

From reading the above am I right that I'd be better off with a 40D (new or 2nd hand), a 17-55 lens, USM if I can stretch to it, then also getting a 70-200 or 70-300mm.

Can anyone recommend a good 70-200 or 70-300mm lense, either canon / tamron / sigma (from what I've read they are the 3 real competitors?)

Thanks for the feedback, it's been good to bounce ideas off everyone. I think I'm gonna pass up the 50D for now whilst I do more research.
Click to expand...

Take what someone on a high street store says with a grain of salt... let's approach it from another way, if you went into a store on something you're knowledgeable in let us say computing how much value would you place on what someone from PC World has to say? You wouldn't because they hire numpties ;p

Don't get me wrong you may have been speaking to someone who's actually pretty good but 1 person off the high street vs Canons previous release schedules and no hint of this from anywhere else means they're probably talking crap.

In your shoes I'd go with the 18-55mm IS kit and the Canon 70-300 IS, they're both great lenses especially for their cost and you've effectively covered most of the range you'll need in only 2 lenses (wide to upper body portrait and head shot to long telephoto). Alternatively you can go for the 17-55mm f2.8 IS and 70-200 f4 IS if you want to get some really good lenses but they cost what? 2-3 times the cost? You have a number of choices available at these ranges.

What's best for you can only be determined by you, you may find that you loathe any slow glass when you're shooting or that primes were the right choice and you may even find a cheap 18-200 does everything and more you need. Best advice is to get shooting and learn from experience.
 
Concorde Rules said:
The 17-55 USM IS which is £200 more is regarded as THE best lens on EF-S and it competes with L.
Click to expand...
"The best lens on EF-S" is a hugely sweeping statement and one I'd dispute, whether you mean of all EF-S compatible lenses or just those in the same focal length range.

As for competing with "L" - in image quality terms perhaps but not when it comes to build quality.
I really don't know what I would do without F2.8 + 3/4 stop IS :)
Click to expand...
Can't really say I see the need for IS below 70mm. Sure it might be useful in odd occasions but those are going to be few and far between when you're already at f/2.8. Of course it's nice to have but not a major deciding factor for me.

Personally I'd spend a little more on the 24-70 rather than the 17-55 but then I have the 10-22 to cover the wide end.
 
Wide angle (17-18mm) is good on some of those lenses. The human eye starts at around 50 mm. Standard lens is the same as the human eye, around 50 mm. 70 starts a little large that human perspective.

Wide Angle could prove to be very valuable.
 
Well as they are cheaper it stands to reason that for serious photography they are not an option. Different matter for the hobbyist however unless you are reckon you have to pay for the name, twice as much?
 
cosmogenesis said:
Well as they are cheaper it stands to reason that for serious photography they are not an option. Different matter for the hobbyist however unless you are reckon you have to pay for the name, twice as much?
Click to expand...

Can I ask what your photography track history is? You've not posted any photos in this section as far as I know and you don't have a website in your profile. I'm interested to know how you got to the conclusion Sigma et al aren't for serious photographers.

I personally own a Sigma 300 f/2.8 after owning two Canon L prime telephotos and two non L zoom telephotos.

Does this mean I'm not a serious photographer?
 
^^Gord^^ said:
Does this mean I'm not a serious photographer?
Click to expand...
Apparently so. Out with you :p

Nah, seriously. As with all manufacturers, quality of lenses and construction varies by price. I don't think anyone will really argue against the fact that Sigma used to have QC issues (front/back-focus, loose focus rings etc), but they really have sorted their game out, so to ignore what they have to offer out of hand is silly.
 
Is it just me misunderstanding you or have you completely failed to make any point whatsoever? There's a Sigma lens on that page you keep steadfastly linking to that costs 7 grand. To anyone other than a premiership footballer that's not "cheap". Alternatively, Sigma offer a lens for 90 quid. Cheap indeed, but then the Canon 50mm f1.8 is about 70 quid new.
 
A.N.Other said:
Apparently so. Out with you :p
Click to expand...

:D

A.N.Other said:
Nah, seriously. As with all manufacturers, quality of lenses and construction varies by price. I don't think anyone will really argue against the fact that Sigma used to have QC issues (front/back-focus, loose focus rings etc), but they really have sorted their game out, so to ignore what they have to offer out of hand is silly.
Click to expand...

Sigma have indeed come along way (so have Nikon ;))

Trick said:
Is it just me misunderstanding you or have you completely failed to make any point whatsoever? There's a Sigma lens on that page you keep steadfastly linking to that costs 7 grand. To anyone other than a premiership footballer that's not "cheap". Alternatively, Sigma offer a lens for 90 quid. Cheap indeed, but then the Canon 50mm f1.8 is about 70 quid new.
Click to expand...

I've no idea what point he(?) is trying to make either. :confused:
 
I stand corrected, always in the wrong century obviously.

Its just that they still seems cheaper for the equivilent canon or nikon lens.
No competitors.
They could be as good, if they are then I will get one of them?
 
I think the point is that cheap does not necessarily equal crap. The other point is you should endeavour to try before you buy and do plenty of research before taking the plunge. Jumping religiously onto the Canon only band-wagon is a good way to spend lots of cash fast - there may well be a lens out there that does the exact job you're after for a lot less dosh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom