# Advice on newbie lens and body for trekking and general photography



## sootzzs (Mar 20, 2012)

I would like to ask the owners of 60d: do you really think it is worth to spend extra $$ (in my case it will be extra 375$) on 60d compared to 600d? I know that most people will say "invest in glass instead". But 375$ is not that much to invest in glass (I don't have more right now) and also I prefer to buy three moderate lenses (18-55 IS, 55-250IS and 50f1.8 II) for ~400$ and cover a lot of range and possibilities to learn and understand which L lens I'll need in the future. I love different kinds of photography and will need this kind of lens for it (which will cost fortune in good glass). Do you think is the right way to think for a complete beginner? 

I love traveling in quite harsh environments (forests, mountains, etc...) and afraid that the 600d wan't be able to withstand it for long (though 60d don't have weatherseeling, it build better(??)). Also I'm afraid to outgrow 600d too fast. I plan to have the same body for at least 3 years. 

And lastly: is 600d worth the 100$ markup over 550d? I understand the sensor is the same and I don't care too much about video. I'm quite concerned about the screen in 600d breaking on me in one of this trips. 

Thanks alot! 
Roman.


----------



## mr.ranger (Mar 20, 2012)

i have had my 60D for little over a year now and i to had the same debate which camera to start of with and worried about the screen, read tons of reviews. but i finally decided this camera and never has let me down so far. the learning curve on it is not bad at all. yes it does have the same sensor but the i can out perform the 550d. when comes down to it that's what you want. the screen actually is really sturdy and comes in handy a lot and for a plastic body its actually really tough. as you can see from my screen name i am also a Park Ranger for National Park Service so i travel a lot through so rough remote places. so does my camera and has held up so far. i would recommend getting a pelican case they are the best when it comes to traveling in mud, dirt, snow, or water. another good thing to do is go to camera store and get your hands dirty. but when comes down to it our opinion does really matter your the photographer! go with what feels right for you. after all you are going to have it for a while.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 20, 2012)

When I'm traveling in harsh environments, I use an old rebel and a good prime. I got the rebel on woot for like $300 refurbished. Instead of going the super weather sealed route, I went the "wouldn't be crushed if it got destroyed" route. It's lightweight and takes great pictures, and it's been beaten up pretty badly and lightly rained upon as well.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 20, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> When I'm traveling in harsh environments, I use an old rebel and a good prime. I got the rebel on woot for like $300 refurbished. Instead of going the super weather sealed route, I went the "wouldn't be crushed if it got destroyed" route. It's lightweight and takes great pictures, and it's been beaten up pretty badly and lightly rained upon as well.



I have a 20D for the same reason. It also makes a god loaner for photo walks for that cute girl who shows up without a camera, or to let my 6 year old handle. 20D + 50mm f1.8 was $180 on eBay...

In general, the 60D is a great camera, and I think the better focus system makes it worth it over the 600D. I'd think used 50D before i went to a new 600D.


----------



## AJ (Mar 20, 2012)

I have taken rebels (film, 300D, 400D) to the ends of the Earth. They have always performed without fail.

I've shot backcountry skiing action shots in puking wet snow. I spent 3 months trekking through the Himalayas in dusty conditions. It's been to dusty Burma in premonsoon heat. I've trekked through the jungles of Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica. I've been to countless windy beaches. I've taken them on literally hunreds of backpacking and skiing trips in the Rocky Mountains. I've shot stars at -35C. I've never had serious issues.

Your rebel will do just fine. Enjoy the light weight and great image quality. Be sure to get a quality padded case.


----------



## kkelis (Mar 20, 2012)

I'd say go for 60D or if you can afford it 7D for better weather sealing. My 600D died while shooting in heavy rain fall about a month ago even though i was using a rain cover.


----------



## dstppy (Mar 20, 2012)

I don't think you will ever regret purchasing a 60D if you do so . . .

I would recommend the exact opposite approach to lenses, however. I started out with a really nice lens (15-85mm) and it's just head-over-heels sharper than the lower end lenses. I was *super* disappointed with the 70-300mm (non-L) lens.

I don't know what your budget is for lenses, but I'd figure that out first . . . you'd be amazed what you can do with a 24-105mm f/4L IS and they're all over used.

People also like the 3rd party zooms . . . I'd just say favor a single better lens than 'covering a range' with hundred-dollar lenses.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 20, 2012)

I have a 50D, so I can't totally speak for the 60D, but I will say this: the xxD series are well worth the extra bucks over the xxxD series. 

You have more options - different increments of ISO stops, the focus control is way easier (I think the xxxD series you have to pick the point on the LCD instead of being able to do it with the joystick in the viewfinder, and that is worth the money itself), and don't forget about the feel of the camera. It just sits in your hand nicer. I have used Rebels a lot, and I am extremely happy I spent the extra dough on the camera itself.

If you get the 60D, pick up a used 28-135 to start. That way you can see what focal length you like the best and start getting nicer lenses afterwards. I like to think of that lens as good for a lot, but great at nothing. That combo would be a great starting point, and it won't break the bank.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 20, 2012)

dstppy said:


> I don't think you will ever regret purchasing a 60D if you do so . . .
> 
> I would recommend the exact opposite approach to lenses, however. I started out with a really nice lens (15-85mm) and it's just head-over-heels sharper than the lower end lenses. I was *super* disappointed with the 70-300mm (non-L) lens.
> 
> ...



I agree, don't get crappy lenses. You will just end up spending 200-300 dollars to realize why people buy nicer lenses. Save yourself the money.


----------



## AprilForever (Mar 20, 2012)

sootzzs said:


> I would like to ask the owners of 60d: do you really think it is worth to spend extra $$ (in my case it will be extra 375$) on 60d compared to 600d? I know that most people will say "invest in glass instead". But 375$ is not that much to invest in glass (I don't have more right now) and also I prefer to buy three moderate lenses (18-55 IS, 55-250IS and 50f1.8 II) for ~400$ and cover a lot of range and possibilities to learn and understand which L lens I'll need in the future. I love different kinds of photography and will need this kind of lens for it (which will cost fortune in good glass). Do you think is the right way to think for a complete beginner?
> 
> I love traveling in quite harsh environments (forests, mountains, etc...) and afraid that the 600d wan't be able to withstand it for long (though 60d don't have weatherseeling, it build better(??)). Also I'm afraid to outgrow 600d too fast. I plan to have the same body for at least 3 years.
> 
> ...



Were I you, I would get the 7D. For much better weather sealing, not much more price, and absolutely wild performance, the 7D is your camera.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 20, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> sootzzs said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to ask the owners of 60d: do you really think it is worth to spend extra $$ (in my case it will be extra 375$) on 60d compared to 600d? I know that most people will say "invest in glass instead". But 375$ is not that much to invest in glass (I don't have more right now) and also I prefer to buy three moderate lenses (18-55 IS, 55-250IS and 50f1.8 II) for ~400$ and cover a lot of range and possibilities to learn and understand which L lens I'll need in the future. I love different kinds of photography and will need this kind of lens for it (which will cost fortune in good glass). Do you think is the right way to think for a complete beginner?
> ...



+1 on the 7D. I didnt think it was an option for him, but if you can do it. Probably the best crop camera you can buy before hitting the 1D series.


----------



## sootzzs (Mar 21, 2012)

Thanks for your replies guys. 
I cannot afford the 7D unfortunately (actually 60D is quite a stress) and I do believe to A.J when he says his Rebels survived all of possible adversities, but still the better ergonomics and the long time I think to use it, make me lean more toward 60D. 

I'm quite puzzled by the cheaper lens (18-55IS and 55-250IS) real potential. I have no doubt it is impossible to compare them to L line, but optically these lens get a quite good marks on many reviews (including DPreviews) and 4.5 stars on Amazon from multiple users (including pro photographers). Both are also noted for their excellent IS. They are plastic and cheap build, no doubt. But at this price both seem more than OK for a casual amateur. Why people here are so against them? Again, I'm not comparing to the L series which I can't afford right now (even second hand).

I could buy both of these lens for about 350$. I'm ready to go to 500$ max for one better. Which one would you recommend? "keithfullermusic" your advice for 28-135 is within my financial possibilities, but on cropped body I would prefer something which starts at 18mm for landscapes (correct me if I'm wrong). 
Also, in your opinion how important it is to have IS in the lens (which adds quite a lot of $$). I understand that longer the lens, IS becomes more important, but lets say between 18-135mm range?

Thanks again! Really appreciate it!


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 21, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Were I you, I would get the 7D. For much better weather sealing, not much more price, and absolutely wild performance, the 7D is your camera.



What exactly is wild about the performance of the 7d? You do know it's got the same sensor as the other aps-c bodies ... but the forum is full of threads about "do I need the 7d ... however, one thing is for sure: the "not much more price" is enough to think putting about the xxxd-xxd-xd difference in a better lens.



kkelis said:


> I'd say go for 60D or if you can afford it 7D for better weather sealing. My 600D died while shooting in heavy rain fall about a month ago even though i was using a rain cover.



The 60d already has better weather sealing than the other rebels, and don't forget your *system* won't be weather sealed until you get a weather-sealed L-lens, too... and ask yourself: are you going to shoot in more-than-light rain at all or do you tend to seek shelter and wait it out anyway?



keithfullermusic said:


> I have a 50D, so I can't totally speak for the 60D, but I will say this: the xxD series are well worth the extra bucks over the xxxD series.



+1 ... for me the back wheel and top lcd screen are essential, I would hate to use the menu all the time


----------



## maxxevv (Mar 21, 2012)

Get the 60D. 

- Get as good a set of lenses as you can afford. Lenses last a long, long time, especially the good ones. Poor quality lenses create more grief in the long term. Seriously. 

- The kit 18-55 IS ( the most current version) is a decent lens. Just that its not the best option if you want to move on to taking high speed AF stuff like sports which the 60D is very capable of if you apply the correct techniques. Likewise for the 55-250 IS. 

- The 50 f/1.8 is an excellent value lens too. In fact all 3 you have chosen are. But they are lenses you will outgrow soon enough. 

- That being said, if your budget is set at US$400 and no more, then its hard to find anything really worth buying for that price either. Your choice at this point is a very good compromise. 

- 2nd hand copies of maybe the Sigma 17-70 HSM may be worth a look or the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 HSM lenses. They will probably max out your budget at this point but are lenses that will keep you company in your photography journey much longer. 

If you have time, perhaps you read up a little on them and see if they are worth your efforts/expenses. 


-


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 21, 2012)

I can vouch for the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS which I had on my 40D (been a sad week as I have sold both my 5DII and the 40D).

The 55-250IS is in my opinion the best budget tele zoom - and can give excellent results. I would not bother with the 50 f/1.8 initially as that is covered by the kit lens (it is also a bit fragile).

Go for the 60D if for no other reason than the extra fps which will be useful for wildlfe shooting


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 21, 2012)

The 18-55 is an "eh" lens. Unfortunately, if you want wide it will cost you. On a crop body, I would say hands down the Canon 10-22 is the best. I've used the Tokina 11-16 2.8, and while nice its nowhere near as sharp as the 10-22. The Canon is a slower lens, but you won't be shooting landscapes at 2.8 - trust me. The 2.8 is great for indoors and events, but not landscapes. I know there are a couple wide sigmas, but I've never used them.

If you want a few lenses I would look at the 50 1.8. It's super fast, really nice, and it's the cheapest lens Canon makes. My widest is a 20 prime 2.8. I love it and it's way sharper than the 10-22, and much much cheaper. But if you want that ultra wide look, it won't be for you.

The reason I suggested the 28-135 is that it's a great lens that serves lots of purposes. It's light, has IS, has a nice range, and it's cheap - especially used.

I will warn you, you will be bummed if you only have a wide angle lens. They are super sweet, and I want one, but I borrow it from my friends a lot, and I only use it in certain situations because it is a specialty lens. It's not a good lens to have if you only have one lens.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I can vouch for the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS which I had on my 40D (been a sad week as I have sold both my 5DII and the 40D).
> 
> The 55-250IS is in my opinion the best budget tele zoom - and can give excellent results. I would not bother with the 50 f/1.8 initially as that is covered by the kit lens (it is also a bit fragile).
> 
> Go for the 60D if for no other reason than the extra fps which will be useful for wildlfe shooting



The 50mm is covered by that range, but the 1.8 is amazing in low light, and you can get a silky smooth bokeh. Dont forget the crispness of prime lenses. That's why I consider it a different animal.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 21, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I can vouch for the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS which I had on my 40D (been a sad week as I have sold both my 5DII and the 40D).
> ...



Am not putting the 50 f/1.8 down - but for a backpacking trip it isn't the most robust in the world. I would always go for the f/1.4 if the funds can be found (and buy it used)


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Am not putting the 50 f/1.8 down - but for a backpacking trip it isn't the most robust in the world. I would always go for the f/1.4 if the funds can be found (and buy it used)



I had the 50/1.8 and tried the 50/1.4 - both are not very sturdy lenses, esp. if the focusing tube is extended. So in this class it really doesn't matter, if you drop your camera or hit the lens on a rock, that's it.


----------



## AJ (Mar 21, 2012)

sootzzs said:


> I'm quite puzzled by the cheaper lens (18-55IS and 55-250IS) real potential. I have no doubt it is impossible to compare them to L line, but optically these lens get a quite good marks on many reviews (including DPreviews) and 4.5 stars on Amazon from multiple users (including pro photographers). Both are also noted for their excellent IS. They are plastic and cheap build, no doubt. But at this price both seem more than OK for a casual amateur. Why people here are so against them? Again, I'm not comparing to the L series which I can't afford right now (even second hand).



These lenses are rated highly because they offer great value. Bang for the buck. There are better lenses out there, but they cost a lot more.

Both these lenses have plasic lens mounts, as does 50/1.8. This works fine when these light lenses are coupled with a light body such as a Drebel. These lens mounts don't need to support much weight, and plastic works just fine. I have used my 50/1.8 on many skiing and backpacking trips, and it has been reliable. 

Yes it'll break when you drop it on a rock. But then again I'm not going to try dropping my 3-pound 7D and 200/2.8 L on that same rock 

Example, Canon 50/1.8 used for action photography. Week-long backcountry ski trip. I used padded cases and ziploc bags to keep my gear from getting knocked around, and to prevent condensation.






I don't have much experience with 18-55 IS. I've heard it's okay. My standard travel zoom nowadays is Tamron 17-50/2.8

I do have 55-250 and I use it for travel. It's surprisingly sharp. I've messed with many cheapo telephoto lenses in the past, and this is the first one that does not lead to disappointment. The IS and AF work well, and for travel you can't beat 300 grams for 250 mm.


----------

