# Lenses for 650D



## thesirren (Feb 24, 2012)

Hello. Long time reader, first time posting ^_^

I have finally decided to dive into the world of photography and am planning to do that with the release of 650D.

Want to pick it up as a "body-only" and purchase the lenses separately.

The first one, which I am almost 100% positive about is the 50mm f/1.4 USM or 50mm f/1.4 II if it is going to be announced before the shipping date of 650D.

The second one I consider purchasing is Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.

What I was wondering about is if there are any zooms within this price range that might be a better option than this Sigma?

Thank you for the input!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 24, 2012)

Typically the 18-55 kit lens and body sell for about the same as body only or only a tiny difference. 
probably best to just get the kit and then you have the kit lens to sell with the body down the track
from what everyone here says the 15-85 canon zoom is a stellar lens so you might want to look at that
also since there is no AF micro adjust on the rebel range I would be hesitant to go sigma and stick with canon as tolerances seem tighter.


----------



## candyman (Feb 24, 2012)

thesirren said:


> The second one I consider purchasing is Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.
> 
> What I was wondering about is if there are any zooms within this price range that might be a better option than this Sigma?
> 
> Thank you for the input!




The Sigma is not stellar in IQ but with limited budget a good lens. You may want to avoid f/2.8 at 17mm. It is very soft (could be my lens specific)
I used this lens and its predecessor for years. 


Check the reviews on Photozone, SLRgear - but you may already done that


If you have the budget then the Canon 15-85mm is a better lens though slower (aperture 3.5 to 5.6)


You may want to check the 17-50 non-VC of Tamron. People say it is also very good and not expensive - may be in your budget


----------



## lexonio (Feb 24, 2012)

I have a 550D and I've used Sigma 17-70 extensively for the last six months. I'm thinking of switching to FF now, and that's why I got a 24-105mm L lens. The difference is astonishing - when I was shooting RAW I needed to bump vibrance and saturation quite a bit, correcting WB much more often than now, and then there's a sharpness difference - it's huge. 

I don't miss those 7 extra mm, since the quality I get compensates for it 100%. So I'd say don't hesitate and buy a 24-105L, it's a good investment and it will last should you decide switch to FF. If you don't ever plan to switch to FF, you might want to consider 15-85, but I'd be reluctant to spend more than 1k on a lens that wouldn't work on a full frame body.

Just my 0.02$


----------



## thesirren (Feb 24, 2012)

Sigma 17-70 is just $450, and I dont think any other lens beats it for that price?

15-85 is a great lens, no doubt, but costs 50% more - $750.

Having seen more of it now, I'm debating whether it is worth the additional $300 or am I better spending it elsewhere, i.e. better tripod, uv, accessories.

24-105 is definitely a good investment, especially since I will probably switch to FF in a couple of years, but costs $1000.

I was planning for $2.5k. ~$1k is going to be the camera itself. So with 50mm 1.4 costing around $400 and sigma costing $450, I'm already close past $2k and am only left with around $500 for everything else.

If I get a 24-105 L lens - I will not have any money left for tripods and will be forced to shoot on-the-go ^_^ If I can find some extra $1k I will consider getting 24-105, or may be 24-70, since the price for it decreased now.

Unfortunately with $2.5k budget my best option still seems to be 17-70.

Also, what tripod would you suggest? Not something too heavy, since I'm going to use it both indoors and outdoors.


----------



## thesirren (Feb 24, 2012)

Reason I set myself a $2.5k limit is because if I go over $3k - I would be tempted too much to purchase the 5D Mk III, even if with a kit lens, and just buy additional lenses couple months later.

With where this discussion is going it looks like I might just have to do exactly that >_<


----------



## thesirren (Feb 24, 2012)

I have just realized that Mk III kit will probably come out with a new 24-105 L lens, so it kinda makes sense to purchase 5DMk3 instead? ^_^


----------



## Tijn (Feb 24, 2012)

A lens that might beat the Sigma you mentioned is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 *non-*VC. It's very sharp for its price. Less zoom range, but f/2.8 on the whole range. Cheaper too.

24-105 is nice if you don't take wide angle photo's (or are willing to switch lenses for those).


----------



## SebSic (Feb 24, 2012)

I would suggest to own the 650d with initial 18 55 kit
plus 50 mm 1.4
plus EFS 18-200 for travels
and in a second time moove to the expensive but efficient EFS 17 55 2.8


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2012)

Tijn said:


> A lens that might beat the Sigma you mentioned is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 *non-*VC. It's very sharp for its price. Less zoom range, but f/2.8 on the whole range. Cheaper too.



+1

had a Tamron 17-50 non VC and it delivered excellent IQ on 350D/400D and 40D. 
Definitely recommended for a very good start if budget is limited. 
I sold it after 2 years with little loss and "upgraded" to the Canon 17-55 ... just to get IS and USM, not due to better IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2012)

thesirren said:


> I was planning for $2.5k



For $2.5K, here's what I'd get:


T4i/650D ($800)
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS ($735)
EF 85mm f/1.8 ($425)
Speedlite 430EX II ($275)
Manfrotto 190XPROB and 498RC2 ($250)
TOTAL = $2485

The lens prices I used include the dedicated lens hoods - I really recommend using a hood with your lenses, it makes a big difference in flare and contrast, and offers some protection, too. Unfortunately, Canon doesn't include the hoods with most non-L lenses.

If you can find a bit more money, I do think the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

I suggest the 85/1.8 over the 50/1.4 because the former has better build quality, better AF (ring USM vs. micromotor USM), and is sharp wide open (unlike the 50/1.4 which has halation from f/1.4 to f/2). The 85/1.8 is a great portrait lens for APS-C.

Good luck with your decisions!


----------



## thesirren (Feb 24, 2012)

Thank you for such a detailed recommednation! I might just go with what you said, even if T4i turns out to be closer to $1k.

85 1.8 definitely looks like a better choice to me now that I have compared the samples from the net.
For the flash I was leaning towards 430EX II as well. But had no idea whatsoever about what tripod I should buy, so thank you for that!

Hopefully I will be able to allow myself to spend extra couple of hundred bucks, so that I can afford 17-55mm.

Best regards,
thesirren


----------



## sama (Feb 24, 2012)

I have a Tamron 17-50 non VC since I started learning very basic photography with 1000D about 3 years ago. I switched to 7D a few months back and I am still enjoying the outcome of the lens. I think it's a good starter because apart from the feature of constant 2.8, the built is reasonably good for it's price. I bought it brand new (grey market) in Hong Kong for about US$280. Highly recommend.

If you need a tele zoom, why not consider Tamron SP AF70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD (Model A005), which I also owned one and love it so far. Reviews indicated that adding up to the 10X zoom in the video shooting (600D), the lens has an unbelievable reach of 300mm X 1.6 X 10 = 4800mm. I believe that 650D will keep this feature too.

Both lenses come with original lens hoods.

Finally, the resell value of these 2 well-built lenses are not bad at all when you want to upgrade in the future.


----------



## ksuweh (Feb 24, 2012)

Before I got into photography I was given some advice by a guy that has been into photography for many many years. His advise to me was that lenses are the real investment. I have been in photography a few years now & I whole heartedly agree with his advise to me. The first lens that I bought along with my 7D was the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This lens is great. Optically it is as good as the two L lenses that I have. It is built well, not L quality, but still a very solid lens. They aren't a sealed lens & they tend to get some dust in them, but that shouldn't be a huge concern, just something to keep in mind. Invest in the lenses & as you grow as a photographer you will not be disappointed in them. The camera body you will want to upgrade much more often then the lenses. If you take care of the lenses they will last you a long time to come!

With that said & the fact that you have expressed that eventually you will go to a FF body I would suggest either the Canon 24-70 or the 24-105.

Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 25, 2012)

thesirren said:


> Hello. Long time reader, first time posting ^_^
> 
> I have finally decided to dive into the world of photography and am planning to do that with the release of 650D.
> 
> ...



I strongly recommend the following. Especially because you have $2500 to spend. That is a lot of money to get a nice gear with an outlook towards the future. 
*
The body*

The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D. This is because you will learn all you can possible learn on the 650D on the 450D. It is the most popular canon dslr even now. Because it is a significantly step up from the 400D with regards to the screen size and live view. With the 500D, 550D and 600D the only improvements are the only slightly larger sensor size, high ISO ( 3200 and 6400 but these are not really useable), and also video. The reason for the 450D is that it is very cheap. You can get a second hand one on ebay for £250 max. 

If you want to shoot video, then get a second hand 550D. It has the same size sensor as the 600D, 60d and the 7D, so you wont notice any significant image improvement. And it shoots video. of course it is slightly more expensive. There is little point getting a new entry level camera, I made that mistake. It is expensive and by the time you are good enough to shoot photography, a newer body is out and I bet you will want to go full frame then. So save your money, get a cheap body. 

*Now the lenses, *

As everyone will tell you, put all your money into lenses. And good lenses. This is because they preserve their value unlike the body that drops in price. Ideally you want to buy the best canon glass. Sigma lenses drop value very fast. finally you want to buy the Full frame lenses. Because you are thinking long term as you will move into full frame eventually. And you wont have to change lenses. The EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies like the 600D are not as good in terms of build and image quality. 

You mentioned the 50mm 1.4. It is a very nice lense on full frame. It is rather tight on the cropped body. But it is a lense you should buy because you will learn that 

1) primes offers the best IQ
2) and you will appreciate why the fast lenses with large aperatures are more expeive and desirable with that 1.4. 

May i reccommend putting your money into a 24-105 f/4 or a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The 24-70 MKI is selling quite cheap as the MKII is coming out. You could afford to buy that and still have loads of cash left. Another idea is to buy the 24-70 MKII new with a used 450D body. Then a year later, you can afford to throw away that body, and if you are ready to move into full frame, the 24-70 MKII will be awesome as it seems to be a amazing lens looking at the MTF chart. The downside is that you will lose a bit of money on the MKII lens a year later. So both MKI and MKII 24-70 are worth to look at. 

Just my 2 cent and my experiences. Ive had loads of cheaper EF-S lenses, tamron lenses, sigma lenses, started with super zooms, and slow aperatures, but like everyone else, I learnt about he L lenses, the fast aperatures. I hope you will get there without spending too much unecessary money, and in as short amout of time as possible. 

p.s. The sigma f/1.4 is much better than the canon 1.4 USM. It is more expensive. The bokeh you get is much better. it is also significantly heavier. You can find one second hand that will help to reduce the price.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2012)

00Q said:


> The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D.


... but if you want to run the firmware addon "magic lantern" (which is why I bought a Canon at all) you need at least a 500D (550D for the most up to date 18MP sensor): http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki



00Q said:


> The EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies like the 600D are not as good in terms of build and image quality.


This is an often discussed issue, and while ef-s lenses are never dust/weather-sealed, I flatly disagree about the image quality - eg. the 15-85 or 17-55 are top lenses, many red-ring ef lenses are crappy, and generally aps-c ultrawides are easier to build for crop bodies than for full frame. Remember: If don't plan to upgrade to full frame bodies (2000€+), you are wasting part of the lens you bought because a crop camera just uses the center part.



00Q said:


> You mentioned the 50mm 1.4. It is a very nice lense on full frame. It is rather tight on the cropped body. But it is a lense you should buy because you will learn that 1) primes offers the best IQ 2) and you will appreciate why the fast lenses with large aperatures are more expeive and desirable with that 1.4.


... and you will learn the reason why people dream about large aperture "shoot in the dark" lenses, but many pro lenses use f4:

a) the most overlooked issue: at large apertures, the depth of field is so thin you can only shoot a flat piece of paper, or something important will be out of focus. f1.4 is great for creative shots, but you won't use it very often. You cannot fix a sensor's iso noise problems just by using a lens with large max. aperture.

b) f2.8 (which indoor/tele pro lenses use) and up requires a very good auto focus system (a good af is *not* only important if something moves), which you won't find on any aps-c body except the 7D

c) a large aperture requires a spot-on adjustment to your body (this is called af micro adjustment) because of possible front/backfocus - again, except for 50D/7D, it's very likely you have to give your body+lens-combination to Canon support for this adjustment.



00Q said:


> p.s. The sigma f/1.4 is much better than the canon 1.4 USM. It is more expensive. The bokeh you get is much better. it is also significantly heavier. You can find one second hand that will help to reduce the price.



+1 for that - I myself nearly got a Canon 50/1.4 but the micro usm motor is outdated, slow and loud, the sharpness with larger aperture then 2.8 is horrible , and the bokeh is indeed very unpleasant. Get the Sigma if you must, but it is heavier and much more expensive. And then see issue c) above.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2012)

00Q said:


> I strongly recommend the following. Especially because you have $2500 to spend. That is a lot of money to get a nice gear with an outlook towards the future.
> ...
> The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D. ...
> ...
> ...



Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree with all of your above quoted recommendations. And all of your quoted assumptions are factually wrong. While giving you all my respect for trying to be helpful here, I do consider your entire posting very bad advice.

$ 2500 are NOT a lot of money to purchase a whole DSLR system plus all accessories (tripod). It basically allows you to get a decent APS-C starter stet. Luckily the OP is very realistic and fully aware of that. 

I would NOT recommend buying an used rebel/xxxD. The current models all offer more than worthwile updgrades in a number of areas over the older models. 

FF is NOT the holy grail of photography. UNLESS somebody makes A LOT of large-sized prints, APS-C is perfectly fine for amateurs/enthusiasts (and many pro's too), unless money is littlle or no object.

You have obviously never tried the Canon EF-S 17-55. It beats the humdrum EF 24-70 by quite some margin, despite the latter being an "L" lens. Nothing magic about that L. And recommending the not even yet available, totally unproven but incredibly expensive 24-70 II to somebody who has a total budget of 2.5k is just ludicrous.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> I would NOT recommend buying an used rebel/xxxD. The current models all offer more than worthwile updgrades in a number of areas over the older models.



While I generally agree with you: Please name the "worthwhile upgrades" and why a new 600D/650D is worth buying over a 550D with the same sensor, then the op can decide (or research the differences himself ).

The good thing about used aps-c bodies is that amateur users are more likely to have seldom used them, so the shutter count and general condition might be near new. A used full frame pro body might have 150000+ shutter cycles on it and break down the very moment you get it, and a repair would be as expensive as a new aps-c body...


----------



## AJ (Feb 25, 2012)

First of all, let me second the recommendation for Tamron 17-50/2.8. If you're after optical performance on a budget, this is the lens to get. I love mine and it's probably my most used lens. I have a 24"x36" canvas print hanging right here above my computer, and it looks absolutely great.

Secondly. Don't wait for future announcements. Get a camera now, there's some great deals on right now. With a $2500 budget you can get a 60D ($900 until March 3) plus a 430 EX speedlite, which qualifies you for a double instant rebate.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=60D&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

You can get a 18-135 IS lens for an additional $300, which is not a bad deal. It's a good, but not great, lens. Or you could get Tamron 17-50 plus Canon 55-250

Put any additional money towards a lens that does you favorite type of photography. Like portraiture? Get Canon 50/1.4 or 85/1.8. Are you into landscapes? Try Canon 10-22. Wildlife/telephoto? Canon 70-300 IS or Tamrom 70-300 VC will get you started.

Have fun!



Edit to add:
You can get a 70-300 IS for an additional $300 right now when you click on "Buy together and Save" on the B&H website. This is a screamin' deal, one you should not pass up. You can get this price with the T3i or 60D, with or without kit lens. Again you need to order before March 3.


----------



## thesirren (Feb 25, 2012)

As much as I'd like to start out right now. I do not like to purchase stuff, when I know that right around the corner is a new and better (if even slightly) model that will cost about just as much as models from previous years.

Thank you everyone for your input. Do not forget that for this money I also have to buy a flash, tripod, and some other minor accessories. 

Neuroanatomist's recommendation still looks like the best option now. I will try to do my best and get the 17-55 over 15-85mm, and if I run very tight for some reason (i.e. T4i turns out to be costly), I will settle for Tamron 17-50.

Question is, how do 17-55 and 24-105 compare to each other in terms of IQ and everything else? I bring this up, because 17-55 is EF-S and I won't be able to use it after I switch to FF. I don't mind this much, because I'm not planning to sell nor body nor glass and keep them in case I will sometimes feel like using APS-C, even after I have FF. But if lenses are not too much different, then I would probably be better off with 24-105? 

I imagine that in general 17-55 would be better on an APS-C body than 24-105?

24-105 actually costs even less than 17-55 nowadays.

For prime it looks like it will have to be 85mm f/1.8, seeing as according to you it is much better than 50mm f/1.4


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2012)

thesirren said:


> I imagine that in general 17-55 would be better on an APS-C body than 24-105? 24-105 actually costs even less than 17-55 nowadays.



... and for a reason: For red-ring full frame users, the 24-105 is said to be "soft" esp. on the longer end - but "soft" is like "sharp" dependent on the final print or web size. For us aps-c guys it is an unfortunate zoom lenght: 24x1.6 is not wide angle, and you will find yourself wishing for 18 or 15 when inside or shooting close, large objects (without wanting to stitch a panorama, that is).

As for the 17-55, you find yourself wishing the reverse - a bit longer on the long side. I'd advise you to ask yourself if you really need the 2.8 for action shots (for low-light lenses have is, and remember the thin dof and the iq loss at open aperture + the af & afam problem on cheap bodies). The iq of the less costly 15-85 is about the same, and neuroanatomist recommended it as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2012)

thesirren said:


> Question is, how do 17-55 and 24-105 compare to each other in terms of IQ and everything else? I bring this up, because 17-55 is EF-S and I won't be able to use it after I switch to FF. I don't mind this much, because I'm not planning to sell nor body nor glass and keep them in case I will sometimes feel like using APS-C, even after I have FF. But if lenses are not too much different, then I would probably be better off with 24-105?
> 
> I imagine that in general 17-55 would be better on an APS-C body than 24-105?
> 
> 24-105 actually costs even less than 17-55 nowadays.



When both the 17-55mm and 24-105mm are used on the same APS-C body, the 17-55mm delivers slightly better IQ. But the real issue is the focal length - 24mm on APS-C is equivalent to 38mm on FF, which isn't even wide angle. I find 24mm on my 7D to not be wide enough indoors. Paired with the 10-22mm or similar, the 24-105 would do, although it would likely mean a lot of lens changes. 

The 17-55mm's FF-equivalent range of 27-88mm covers wide to short tele, ideal as a walkaround lens. I prefer it to the 15-85mm mainly for the faster aperture, which allows faster shutter speeds to stop action and more OOF blur for portrait-type shots. Still, if those situations aren't going to be common for you (and you'll have the fast prime, too), the 15-85mm has a broader range that would come in handy (although it also has more distortion and vignetting than the 17-55mm, so I'd rate the IQ of the 17-55mm slightly higher than the 15-85mm; sharpness is a wash between them). 

As for keeping the APS-C if/when you go FF, I did keep my 7D after getting the 5DII. I use it mainly for birds/wildlife with the 100-400mm, occasionally for indoor sports with the 135L or 70-200L II. I did keep my 17-55mm, even though I have the 16-35 and 24-105 - the 17-55mm is just a bit better than either, for me (although the L lenses with the weather sealed 7D are useful in the rain).


----------



## jwong (Feb 25, 2012)

thesirren said:


> Neuroanatomist's recommendation still looks like the best option now. I will try to do my best and get the 17-55 over 15-85mm, and if I run very tight for some reason (i.e. T4i turns out to be costly), I will settle for Tamron 17-50.
> 
> Question is, how do 17-55 and 24-105 compare to each other in terms of IQ and everything else? I bring this up, because 17-55 is EF-S and I won't be able to use it after I switch to FF. I don't mind this much, because I'm not planning to sell nor body nor glass and keep them in case I will sometimes feel like using APS-C, even after I have FF. But if lenses are not too much different, then I would probably be better off with 24-105?
> 
> ...



If you follow Neuro's list, you might want to consider getting some of the gear used from the canon store (shop.usa.canon.com). The 17-55 currently sells for 943, the 85 f/1.8 for 336, and the 430 ex ii for 240. At least they come from a known source and come with a 90 day warranty. Better deals can be had when the canon store has sales periodically, so if you're willing to buy things piecemeal, it could save you a few hundred dollars. I got the ef-s 10-22 for slightly more than 600 (incl. tax and shipping) when they had a sale in December. If you do decide to switch to FF years down the road, you'll only have a slight loss. I've seen used 17-55s sell on Ebay for 850.

I would not worry about the lack of range of the 17-55 compared to the 15-85 because you're also getting a 85 prime. You'll have more lens switches, but f/2.8 is really useful taking photos indoors. Plus, I'm assuming that you'd get a longer telephoto anyway in the future like a 70-200 or 70-300...


----------



## bobthebrick (Feb 25, 2012)

Hi,

I agree with the other poster who said get a used body, it's much cheaper, and you'll be wanting to upgrade in a year or so. The 550D is very good, and you can get a more solid camera like a 30D for about 150 used, and even a 50D for about 350. If you want to get a new body that's fine as well. Here's what I'd do:

~Body - 650d/550D/30D/50D = ~$800/$400?/$150/$350
~Lens 1 - 50 1.4 (mk I or II if it comes out) = $320
~Lens 2 - 17-40 f4L = ~$750, cheaper used, maybe ~$400-500
~Manfrotto 190XPROB w/ 498 RC2 head = ~$250
~Speedlite 430EX II = ~$275
~Filters, hoods, etc = ~$200
~Bag = ~$150

Total cost: ~$1745 - $2745 (depending on body choice and whether you choose to get the 17-40 used)

I'd choose the 30D out of the bodies, it's more solid than the rebel series and so can take a better beating, and it's cheaper. By a lot. It also has a reasonable feature set for a beginner, and 8.2 megapixels is enough as a starter if you're not printing big, and few beginners do. I say save the money, one because it's just saving money, and it's always nice to have a bit more of it, and two, because in about a year you'll want to upgrade it.

I picked the 50 1.4 over the 85 1.8 because while I prefer the 85 on a fullframe, it's a very weak and awkward focal length on a crop body. Good for sitdown formal portraits, not much else, and as your one fast prime (think of it as f2.8/ maybe f2.2, regardless of sharpness, DOF is almost always too thin an wider apertures), you want a good allround focal length. I also like using 1.4 creatively and for silly bokeh photos. You can correct any sharpness and what not in PhotoShop, but at least to me, at f2.8 it's damn sharp, sharper than any zoom.

The 17-40L becomes roughly a 27-64mm zoom on a crop body which is a pretty useful little range. I picked it because it's cheaper than the 17-55, has similar if not very very very slightly better image quality on a crop, has better build quality, and includes a hood and bag. Who can argue with free stuff?  It's also more versatile, you can use it on a FF if you choose to upgrade.

The Manfrotto 190XPROB and the 498 RC2 head are just the best in the 200-300 price range that is portableish, and hence usable. 'Nuff said.

Don't skimp out on filters, I like Hoya HD on the 50mm, and B&W Pro Slim on the 17-40. Just get a cheap ebay hood for the 50, the 17-40 comes with one.

Lastly invest in a good bag. You can get a cheap TSTAR or whatnot that'll kind of do the job for $20, but it's uncomfortable and you'll upgrade to a nicer bag that you'll use and can fit more stuff in it, why not save the 20 bucks and buy a better bag now that you'll prefer to use anyway? I like the Lowepro fastpack range, especially the 350 as backpacks, if you prefer shoulder bags look at the Lowepro Nova series, etc.

The 430EX II is really the only option here, I don't think it needs to be justified.

And that's just my three and a half cents,

Thomas.


----------



## AJ (Feb 25, 2012)

I agree with everything AvTvM says. Karma comin' your way.

Also. My $0.02. The best value right now is not used gear, and definitely not stuff that may come out at some point in the future. It's the current gear with the rebates. Get brand new gear from a reputable store like B&H with a warranty and customer satisfaction guarantee. 

As for upcoming announcements. Ask yourself: what is that the current T3i/60D doesn't do, and the T4i/70D will have, and that you absolutely can't live without? T3i and 60D are excellent cameras. Value is best at the end of a product cycle, i.e. right now. This is the time to buy! And that includes 5D2 for those looking towards a FF cam. 

Just because there's a T4i om the market doesn't mean that a T3i is "old". A T3i is a brand-new camera right out of the box. If you spend much time reading sites like this, you'll fall into the trap of thinking the next camera is a huge leap forward. It won't be. There will be tiny incremental step forward. I say, get yourself a camera and start shooting.


----------



## sama (Feb 25, 2012)

bobthebrick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I agree with the other poster who said get a used body, it's much cheaper, and you'll be wanting to upgrade in a year or so. The 550D is very good, and you can get a more solid camera like a 30D for about 150 used, and even a 50D for about 350. If you want to get a new body that's fine as well. Here's what I'd do:
> 
> ...



Hi,

Where possibly could I find a 30D/50D for $150/350 ? I am really interested. Ebay sellers are asking for more than double.

Thanks.


----------



## Positron (Feb 25, 2012)

When you say you "decided to dive into the world of photography", are you coming from point-and-shoot, or did you shoot film more seriously and just getting into digital? You seem to have done your research regarding the equipment, but if you haven't been a hobbyist before it's hard to know what kind of things you enjoy taking pictures of the most, and that knowledge is critical for making a meaningful recommendation.

If you do a lot of "walk-around" photography, for example on vacations or at street festivals, the suggestion neuro made (why are all of his suggestions so good?) will serve you extremely well, plus you get decent portrait and landscape setups to boot (between the 85/flash and 15/tripod). If you are a macro fan, that gear won't help you as much as you'd like, and if you like to take pictures of sports or animals in their natural habitats, you may be disappointed, as well.

As was mentioned before, $2500 is quite a lot of money to spend at once, even if you know exactly what you want! If you can afford it, more power to you. In my case, I had a little over $1500 of disposable income and I was considering getting a T2i with the 17-55, but I decided instead to get a refurbished T2i/18-55 kit and a 50mm 1.8, and leave the other $800 in the bank. Now that I've shot a bunch I realize that I love wide angle to death and 17mm on crop just wouldn't do it for me, so now I'm saving up for a 5D and 17-40 and/or possibly Samyang 14 2.8.

Anyway, enough about me. If you know what you want, go for it and don't look back. If you're just getting into it, though, and you're not looking to blow your life savings, I'd figure out what you enjoy shooting first and specializing your gear toward that.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 25, 2012)

I got my parents a 600D for xmas and i think the upgrades over the 550 are worth the slight cost difference

well I looked on ebay

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-Kiss-X5-EOS-600D-Rebel-T3i-body-hdmi-gifts-1RMV-/300634605664?pt=AU_Digital_Cameras&hash=item45ff380860
Theres the body about $580

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2-8-USM-EW-83J-Lens-Hood-DAH7-/390230548234?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item5adb8d9f0a
Canon 17-55 f2.8 including lens hood about $990

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-EF-85mm-85-mm-f-1-8-F1-8-USM-UV-filter-7D-5D-A4V0-/390227170629?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item5adb5a1545
Canon 85mm f1.8 about $420

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PRE-SELL-BENRO-A0691TB00-Travel-Angel-Series-Aluminium-Tripod-set-Ball-Head-/230703323654?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item35b6fd5a06
tripod about $220
I have the carbon version of these and these are excepionally goo tripods for the money

Well there you go thats a bit over $2200 
you still have $300 for a decent bag and some other bits
look around for a second hand 430ex flash, maybe $150 and you can get a decent bag for maybe $100

I would seriously recommend against tamron at all due to very poor quality
steer clear of sigma unless you get a body with AF micro adjust

then save up for a white tele zoom down the track
look at the 70-300 which has a good rep or the non IS 70-200 f2.8 if you want fast aperture they are in a similar price range about $1300

if you are in the USA you can look at the canon refurb store and pic any or all those items up cheaper

so your budget you can get the lot just shop around and good luck


----------



## thesirren (Feb 26, 2012)

Once again, great replies!

Most of my pictures would probably have to be landscapes and weather (whether it is in my hometown or during travel), with portraits of people and animals taking a close second. Some minor macro as well. I'm not looking to buy something like a 70-200 or 300, because it simply looks like I do not have any material here for it to work with. 

I plan to do quite a lot of night-time photography, mostly landscapes with starry skies.

Not eliminating the possibility of wanting to shoot some time-lapses.



I really do not like the idea of purchasing used gear. First of all, because I'm not living in USA, and not even in EU, and I won't be able to find these used for good prices in my country. Secondly, I will still have to pay import taxes for it as if it was "new". And last, but not least, I really prefer to have brand new gear, even though it might not be practical from a financial position of a starting photographer, since I intend to keep it and I like to be a sole owner of the stuff I have ^_^. Plus, by purchasing stuff from second hands you are not making any profit for manufacturers, and being an enterpreneur myself I think that this is not exactly fair to companies that put a lot of work to provide us with any kind of gear.

Also I consider purchasing expensive and fragile stuff like lenses from abroad very dangerous, because delivery would take over 30 days from the seller to my doors, and if anything was to happen to it, I'd have to ship it back and that would be another 30 days before sellers gets it and is able to replace me with a new one (if at all). And obviously I'll be out not only for time, but for importa taxes as well, which no one is going to refund me.

I'd rather purchase brand new stuff in my country, once it becomes available. Even if I have to pay 20% extra.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2012)

thesirren said:


> I plan to do quite a lot of night-time photography, mostly landscapes with starry skies. Not eliminating the possibility of wanting to shoot some time-lapses.


In *that* case please do yourself a big favor and get a magic-lantern compatible body like the 600D - the 650D might have an updated DIGIC and might not be able to run it for some time. ML is *the* on-board software for time lapses and bulb ramping, see the wiki and just look at some samples:

http://vimeo.com/search/videos/search:magic%20lantern%20timelapse/st/343e254d


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 26, 2012)

bobthebrick said:


> ...while I prefer the 85 on a fullframe, it's a very weak and awkward focal length on a crop body. Good for sitdown formal portraits, not much else, and as your one fast prime (think of it as f2.8/ maybe f2.2, regardless of sharpness, DOF is almost always too thin an wider apertures), you want a good allround focal length.



I agree with much of what you stated, but I've got to disagree with characterizing 85mm on APS-C as 'a very weak and awkward focal length on a crop body'. That's the same as saying that 135mm on FF is 'weak and awkward' yet the 135L is one of Canon's classic portrait lenses, that also works great for sports with the fast f/2 aperture. 

Here are a few examples of that focal length. The first two are 85mm on APS-C (starting with the 85/1.8, then I moved to the 85L II), the last one with the 135L on FF - I liked the 85mm focal length on APS-C well enough to replicate it by getting the 135L after getting the 5DII.




Rebel T1i, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.8, ISO 100




EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.6, ISO 100




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 135mm f/2L USM, 1/1600 s, f/2.2, ISO 100


----------



## thesirren (Mar 11, 2012)

Ok, now that 650D is not so imminent, it looks like I will be able to save up a little more by the release date.

Since I plan to shoot quite a lot of landscapes - which wide-angle lens should I look into? 

Sigma 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Canon 16-35 or what other options are there?


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

thesirren said:


> Since I plan to shoot quite a lot of landscapes - which wide-angle lens should I look into?



Remember that you can stitch panoramas from any lens and get an angle and resolution that even a uwa lens is not able to cover. It even works handheld, but a tripod is advisable.


----------



## jwong (Mar 11, 2012)

thesirren said:


> Ok, now that 650D is not so imminent, it looks like I will be able to save up a little more by the release date.
> 
> Since I plan to shoot quite a lot of landscapes - which wide-angle lens should I look into?
> 
> Sigma 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Canon 16-35 or what other options are there?



Skip the 16-35 for crop bodies -- it's not wide enough. I have and like Canon's 10-22, although Sigma's 8-16 and Tokina's 11-16 are also supposed to be good. Tokina's 11-16's f/2.8 is not much of an advantage if you plan on using it primarily for landscapes.


----------



## jwong (Mar 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Remember that you can stitch panoramas from any lens and get an angle and resolution that even a uwa lens is not able to cover. It even works handheld, but a tripod is advisable.



Are there techniques for getting around shifting elements (moving clouds or ocean waves) when trying for panorama's?


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

jwong said:


> Are there techniques for getting around shifting elements (moving clouds or ocean waves) when trying for panorama's?



I take it this is not a real question, sorry for trying to be helpful.

But I can say that with my panoramas clouds never posed any problem since I don't shoot near storms or tornados. And I didn't say there are no uses for wide angle lenses, but I often observe that people don't have stitching in mind and buy a standard wide angle lens for "taking it all in" once in a while, if they should have gotten a real uwa lens for creative shots.


----------



## jwong (Mar 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I take it this is not a real question, sorry for trying to be helpful.
> 
> But I can say that with my panoramas clouds never posed any problem since I don't shoot near storms or tornados. And I didn't say there are no uses for wide angle lenses, but I often observe that people don't have stitching in mind and buy a standard wide angle lens for "taking it all in" once in a while, if they should have gotten a real uwa lens for creative shots.



Thanks for the smite, but it WAS and IS a real question. I was considering looking into pano rigs, but I'm not sure what their limitations are.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

jwong said:


> Thanks for the smite, but it WAS and IS a real question. I was considering looking into pano rigs, but I'm not sure what their limitations are.


Ups, sorry, I really thought that would be self-explanatory.

I am using a legacy 28-105 lens on my crop body and got around getting an wider one by using Autopano. As long as something doesn't move fast (like waves, that's why I thought you were sarcastic) it works very well even handheld and then reducing the final panorama to ~66% resolution. As I wrote, clouds aren't much of a problem, but leaves are when they move in the wind - it confuses the stitching software and results in ghosts. 

All in all, panoramas are perfect for indoor scenes, and your mileage may vary for nature shots - but it is worth a try, since you can get very high resolution shots simply by shooting vertical, overlapping 1/3 to left and right and then clicking a button in the software.


----------



## Silverstream (Mar 11, 2012)

I have a Sigma 50mm f1.4 for my T2i and it sux. So bad at focusing, sharpness, and CA that I don't even use it. Went thru 2 copies of this lens trying to get a decent one. 

The best lens I have which is awesome in sharpness as well as focusing speed is the EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS. One of the best purchases I've made.


----------



## AJ (Mar 12, 2012)

thesirren said:


> Ok, now that 650D is not so imminent, it looks like I will be able to save up a little more by the release date.
> 
> Since I plan to shoot quite a lot of landscapes - which wide-angle lens should I look into?
> 
> Sigma 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Canon 16-35 or what other options are there?


Canon 10-22 mark 2.


----------



## thesirren (Mar 14, 2012)

Forgot to mention that it preferably should be compatible with FF body. So even though 10-22 is good - I need other options, so that I don't have to sell the glass when I switch to FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2012)

thesirren said:


> Forgot to mention that it preferably should be compatible with FF body. So even though 10-22 is good - I need other options, so that I don't have to sell the glass when I switch to FF.



If you want an ultrawide lens for APS-C that's also FF-compatible, since 'ultrawide' on APS-C means <15mm, you have two choices for zooms (one rectilinear) and two for primes. The two zooms are the Sigma 12-24mm and the Canon 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye, and the two primes are the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II and the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (the latter being inexpensive but fully manual, aperture and focus). The Sigma 12-24mm is slow and soft, the 8-15mm is a fisheye, the 14L is _very_ expensive, and the Samyang suffers from wicked-bad moustache distortion which is hard to correct in post. 

Given those choices, I'd pick up either the Sigma 8-16mm or the Canon 10-22mm, and sell it if when going FF. The Canon lens, in particular, will hold it's value well - I bought mine new, sold it a year later for a loss of $50, and if I was selling it today, I'd make a profit given the recent lens price increases.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> and the Samyang suffers from wicked-bad moustache distortion which is hard to correct in post.



The samyang looks like it can be corrected quite well in post. I'm seriously considering one.

http://www.photo-worx.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=


----------



## Tijn (Mar 14, 2012)

jwong said:


> Are there techniques for getting around shifting elements (moving clouds or ocean waves) when trying for panorama's?


For clouds, using a tripod with a rotating element to allow you to turn quicker, and thereby shooting the photos quicker after one another.

Waves will be too erratic. What you could do if the clouds are still, however, is using a long (10seconds+) exposure to let the water movement blur out. That way, stitching the water together should be easier (though may still require some editing). This would obviously also require a tripod, and probably some ND filters too.


----------



## thesirren (Mar 25, 2012)

Can you please give me advices on which filters are good and what I should get for the respective lenses?

Canon EF 85 f/1.8 USM
Canon EF-S 10-22
Canon EF-S 17-55
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L (this is probably later down the road)

Complete name would be preferable, so that it is easier for me.


----------



## thesirren (Mar 25, 2012)

Is Marumi or Hoya any good?


----------

