Purchasing my first DSLR soon, guidance appreciated

Kazz · 2 May 2012 at 20:09

Heya

I've been borrowing cameras for years from family members, but it's time I stump up the cash for one of my own. I'm kind of set on what I want, but some input from you guys would be great.

My budget is around £600 and I can't really go any higher as I'm moving house soon. I'm interested in wildlife, particularly birds and general treks out and about. After a fair bit of reading up, here's what I've came up with. All second hand of course

.

Canon 40D £300ish
70-300mm IS £250
50mm f/1.8 £50

I was thinking of using the 50mm for general use, days out, occasions and then the other lens for wildlife ventures.

Any thoughts or recommendations?

Ksanti · 2 May 2012 at 20:16

50 is too long for general use to be brutally honest. 50 on a crop is reasonably specialised towards portraiture; a 35 is closer to what you want but then the cheapest decent 50-equivalent (i.e. 30-35 on a crop) is the Sigma 30 1.4, which costs around £300.

K.C. Leblanc · 2 May 2012 at 20:25

Ksanti said:
50 is too long for general use to be brutally honest. 50 on a crop is reasonably specialised towards portraiture; a 35 is closer to what you want but then the cheapest decent 50-equivalent (i.e. 30-35 on a crop) is the Sigma 30 1.4, which costs around £300.

Another alternative is to get a basic 18-55 to start and then replace it for something better when you've got used to your gear.

Kazz · 2 May 2012 at 22:38

Hmm. Might be better with the 18-55 then for now? Could always pickup a 50mm later I guess, I just heard that they're a good lens to learn how to shoot properly with.

An Exception · 3 May 2012 at 09:21

You can't buy it all right away, personally I wouldn't get the kit lens.
I'd keep an eye out for a cheap D90, then pair it up with a 35mm 1.8g as it's a million miles better and more useful than a Canon 50 1.8, then save up for a zoom for birds etc..

Beepcake · 3 May 2012 at 09:49

Personally I'd get the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and either an imported or 2nd hand 55-250 IS. Both excellent lenses optically, and you should be able to get those and a 2nd hand body for within your budget.

You can take a look in here for various shots and opinions of the lenses.

gt_junkie · 3 May 2012 at 12:29

70-300mm IS is an epic lens and certainly worth it over the 55-250mm (have had both - the 55-250mm twice even) IMHO. Stabilisation is better and it's build quality is higher, plus its USM focussing system is quiet and faster. That said there's ultimately nothing wrong with the 250mm and it's optically good (as stated above) but it's just not close on overall quality as I see it.

For the wider end the newer 18-55mm IS kit lenses (Mark2 is best of these but the Mark1 Is fine too) are perfectly suitable and perform well on the whole. Just avoid the original non stabilised 18-55mm kit lens as that is soft.

As for the body it doesn't really matter too much. Have got good results with the 350D, 10D, 20D and 30D. The 40D is a great and affordable higher mid range unit so certainly a worthy choice! Think there's a 40D (and cheaper 30D) up on the MM so worth a look.

gt

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 3 May 2012 at 13:31

An Exception said:
You can't buy it all right away, personally I wouldn't get the kit lens.
I'd keep an eye out for a cheap D90, then pair it up with a 35mm 1.8g as it's a million miles better and more useful than a Canon 50 1.8, then save up for a zoom for birds etc..

Definitely more useful if its to be used as a walk around lens but a million times better? High CA's and distortion on a prime and that's at twice the price of the canons 50mm. Its a very good lens but your Nikon heritage is showing through

The Canon kit IS lens 18-55 would be fine to start with and its quite a sharp lens, although you may find yourself wanting a 2.8 17-50 Tamron depending on your usage.

A zoom lens for birds is a tough choice. The cheaper zooms struggle and can be soft at 300mm (my sigma is), I think Tamron does a decent one but its still £350 or so (Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di VC USD) and its not a quick lens so you will be relying on the light or upping the ISO. If/when I replace my 70-300 sigma I'll be looking at a second hand canon 300mm f4 L for around £420 as I find myself always wanting the long end of the zoom and rarely using the short end, plus I like primes

An Exception · 3 May 2012 at 14:04

stuartw_b said:
Definitely more useful if its to be used as a walk around lens but a million times better? High CA's and distortion on a prime and that's at twice the price of the canons 50mm. Its a very good lens but your Nikon heritage is showing through

The Canon kit IS lens 18-55 would be fine to start with and its quite a sharp lens, although you may find yourself wanting a 2.8 17-50 Tamron depending on your usage.

It's the 2nd lens I ever owned, the first was the 18-55.
Having also owned the 35 1.8, it is definitely a much better lens, and still a bargain if only twice the price...

Kazz · 3 May 2012 at 14:31

Beepcake said:
You can take a look in here for various shots and opinions of the lenses.

This helps a newbie like myself a lot, thanks for that link

.

Thanks for all the other input guys, much appreciated. I think I'll stick with the 40D but go with a 18-55 IS kit lens instead of the 50mm for now for my "everyday" lens.

Beepcake · 4 May 2012 at 09:05

gt_junkie said:
70-300mm IS is an epic lens and certainly worth it over the 55-250mm (have had both - the 55-250mm twice even) IMHO. Stabilisation is better and it's build quality is higher, plus its USM focussing system is quiet and faster. That said there's ultimately nothing wrong with the 250mm and it's optically good (as stated above) but it's just not close on overall quality as I see it.

To be honest, my main reason for suggesting it was it's much cheaper, and most people seem to eventually gravitate towards one of the 70-200L lenses, so the 55-250 is an excellent "stop gap" until you decide you don't actually need any money in your bank account ;-)

gt_junkie · 4 May 2012 at 11:35

Yeah, I'd more than agree with that Beepcake.

For absolute value the 55-250 is virtually impossible to fault. I bought mine for a trip to Africa (just so I didn't have a lens of massive value with me) and again later on simply since I needed a longer lens than the 150 macro I owned. Overall it did a very impressive job considering the cost.

I only champion the 70-300mm IS since I felt it offered massive performance at the (relatively) low cost of £250-£300. My fiancee uses one - I spent a few days researching many affordable zoom lenses including the 55-250 I'd had and kept coming back to the 70-300. Even over something like a 70-200. I'd had the non IS F4 (similar'ish' value) and the lack of reach and lack of IS meant I could not justify it for build and IQ alone.

Having used the 70-300mm a few times myself I found the IS to be very strong indeed. I've been able to take great 300mm shots @ 1/30th second for example. Build quality is solid too which I was almost surprised by. Actually the only issue I have with it is that the front element rotates and extends as it focuses which is far from ideal for polarisers, graduated and horizon filters.

Compared to my own 100-400mm the build is a bit off but the IQ isn't and focussing speed really aren't that different either. Oh, and as for the IS there's a massive difference with the newer system in the 70-300mm offering much better stabilisation than the older 100-400mm.

gt

julianhj · 4 May 2012 at 21:07

Beepcake said:
Personally I'd get the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and either an imported or 2nd hand 55-250 IS. Both excellent lenses optically, and you should be able to get those and a 2nd hand body for within your budget.

You can take a look in here for various shots and opinions of the lenses.

The Tamron 17-50mm non-VC is a fantastic lens, and was what I used with my 40D prior to going full frame. You can pick them up for around £250.