# First dSLR, lens recommendations



## Sartor (Apr 12, 2012)

Hi

I'm buying my first dSLR and I'm looking for some advice.

My current camera is the Canon Powershot G9. I have played with the different modes for e.g. aperture and shutter speed, and now I want more 

I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.

I like to photograph landscapes and animal as well as portraits.

As for lenses, I have read that the EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good choice for an all-round starting lens so I’ll buy that unless you convince me otherwise 

Now, the thing is I’m going to Malaysia in six weeks where I among other places will be going to the rainforest and hopefully I’ll be able to 'shoot' some wildlife.

I was fist thinking of getting the ES-F 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as my second lens for landscapes, but now I’m wondering if a tele lens might do me better as the difference between 10 and 15 mm isn’t that much.
How long focal length will I need for 'shooting' animals? My guess is that even the 15-85 mm will be too short even at the long end. So is this 200, 300, 400 mm?
I will be shooting handheld most of the time, so IS is almost a requirement.
I’d appreciate any suggestions for primes or zooms lenses. My budget for lenses is 1,500 € at the most.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 12, 2012)

Sartor said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm buying my first dSLR and I'm looking for some advice.
> 
> ...



Congratulations on your choice. 17-55 you selected is expensive but great. Wildlife is expensive unless you shoot wild spiders or flies playing on the table. 70-200 F4 would be a great choice if you can afford your budget together with 17-55. If you still will have budget go for 50 1.8 - not good built lens with great picture quality for no money.


----------



## Zo0m (Apr 12, 2012)

15-85 is a great lens and so is the 60D. No complaints for me there. 15 is pretty wide on crop and I think you should probably get a tele at first instead of a wide angle. The 10-22 overlaps quite alot with the 15-85. 85mm is nowhere near far enough for shooting shy wildlife.


Maybe an Canon 70-200L f4 non-IS would suit your needs. You could get the IS version or possibly the 70-300L IS if you got the dough. I heard alot of good about the Tamron 70-300 VC too. Great bang for your buck that lens.

Have you considered the 7D. It's more weatherproofed then the 60D for sure. Good if you're hiking in rainforest. Though you'll need weathersealed lenses to go along with that body. Also, what kind of budget do you have?

Personally, I have always had a week spot for the 550D. Same sensor as the 7D, 1/3 of the price.


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 12, 2012)

Zo0m said:


> Have you considered the 7D. It's more weatherproofed then the 60D for sure. Good if you're hiking in rainforest. Though you'll need weathersealed lenses to go along with that body. Also, what kind of budget do you have?



This is a very good consideration! Remember that a "weather sealed" lens isn't FULLY weather sealed until you put a screw on filter on the lens. I would recommend B+W Multi Resistant Coating (MRC) UV filter. The logic behind buying an expensive filter to put on your lens is to protect the front lens element of the lens. Its much easier to replace a filter than a lens.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 12, 2012)

Ideally, it'd be nice to get both the 10-22 and the 70-300L (or 100-400L). Any of the 70-200mm variants are good choices too, but the 70-300L and 100-400L have more reach natively. Anything past 400mm natively gets very expensive very quickly. That said, even 400mm on a crop might not be enough if you're shooting small objects from a large distance, and the same focal increment has less of an effect the longer the lens gets (i.e. big effect from 100 to 200mm, much smaller from 300mm to 400mm). It might be worthwhile for you to try out the 70-300 and 100-400 in a store to decide between the two. Some people really do not like the push/pull design of the 100-400L.

There is a big difference between 10 and 15mm. The G9 has an effective focal range of 35-210mm, so the 15-85 will definitely give you a wider perspective (24mm). If you don't find yourself at the wide limit of the G9 all that often, I'd suggest getting a tele zoom first.

If you do choose the the 15-85 over the 17-55, then you might want to consider a fast prime sooner rather than later down the road because the difference in max aperture is larger. Both 17-55 and 15-85 are fine choices.


----------



## gtog (Apr 12, 2012)

A 60D with the EF-S 15-85mm is a good start for outside daylight shooting.

The "classic" Canon telephoto zoom for wildlife is the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. It is a push-pull zoom design, does accept the Canon teleconverters, but has an older less capable IS.

The newer Canon telephoto zoom I would suggest is the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. It is a more compact lens, equal or better IQ than the 100-400, and has the newer 4-stop IS. It does not accept the Canon teleconverters (but will work with the Kenko). See the Canon Rumors Guy's review for more info and pictures.

The Canon 70-200 zooms are great lenses but are likely to leave you wanting more "reach" for wildlife, though they would provide a constant aperture and do accept the Canon teleconverters (which you will probably find yourself wanting to use -- may as well get the range built-in). They would work better for portraits but you might consider an EF 85mm f/1.8 prime for portraits paired with a "wildlife" zoom.

For longer focal lengths, you are into super-telephoto primes territory and probably outside your budget at this point, though maybe not for a future acquisition. 

Enjoy your trip!

Oh, the answer for how long a lens you need for shooting wildlife is 100mm longer than you have available (I believe it is a corollary to Murphy's Law). ;D

G


----------



## EOBeav (Apr 13, 2012)

Congratulations on your decision to get a dslr. It sounds like you recognize that you're ready for the next step. I think we all remember the day we made that decision. 

One thing that helped me when I first got started: I bought a 50mm f/1.4 and just stuck with that on my Rebel for a long time. It helped me really get a handle on composition and forced me to recompose with my feet, instead of just zooming in/out. I believe I became a better photographer because of it. You can get a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for like $130, probably the best lens anywhere for the money. After that, you can start deciding how to add to your stable.


----------



## helpful (Apr 13, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> One thing that helped me when I first got started: I bought a 50mm f/1.4 and just stuck with that on my Rebel for a long time. It helped me really get a handle on composition and forced me to recompose with my feet, instead of just zooming in/out. I believe I became a better photographer because of it. You can get a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for like $130, probably the best lens anywhere for the money. After that, you can start deciding how to add to your stable.



I agree with that. At the beginning of your photography career you have the most potential to develop your photography talents the fastest.

As a past photography instructor I have seen that zooms tend to kill any photographic intuition that would be normally developed by a new photographer with a prime lens.

With a zoom lens you can just sit there not being a good photographer and you'll never even know it. And keep getting mundane shots.

The over-arching thing about photography isn't cropping, composition, etc.--it is first of all what is in the picture and second of all from what perspective you are taking the picture from. In other words, where you physically are, in a relationship with where the subject physically is.

Once someone becomes an expert with lighting, their equipment, and all of that, photography basically boils down to the relationship between the subject and the camera, which is acting in the place of eyes for whoever will be viewing the photograph forever after.

A prime lens teaches you how to have this relationship between the camera and the subject, whatever that might be. A zoom lens does not teach this. It makes you think about zooming in or out, or getting around obstacles, rather than a simple relationship with the subject.

A zoom is like someone who stands in one place and screams for what they want at whatever volume is needed to irritate everyone into paying attention, rather than talking in the right tone of voice for each situation that is at hand.

As soon as so many people stopped using zoom lenses, for me I have seen for them the true world of photography open up and blossom.

The 50mm f/1.4 mentioned is an excellent choice, and I would highly recommend the superb f/2.8L 200mm lens at the ridiculously cheap price of about $800 as your next lens (it will revolutionize your photography, and it is equivalent and just as good as the 300mm f/2.8 $11,000 lens on your 60D camera). You can keep your kit lens for any wider angle shots that you need.

How far will these two lenses put you ahead of anyone else? Light years.

A lot of people think that they want a lens like a 28-300mm.

At 50mm and beyond you would be shooting closer to f/5.6 than f/4.

The 50mm lens is sharper and lets in one, two, three, four stops more light (f/5.6, f/4.0, f/2.8, f/2.0, f/1.4).

This is SIXTEEN TIMES more powerful of a tool for your photography than the zoom lens.

And even if that were not true, prime lenses are still better for learning and executing the art of photography and the relationship with the subject which is all important as soon as all the technical details are mastered.


----------



## helpful (Apr 13, 2012)

I read through your post again and based on your budget for lenses and the subjects you want to photograph, this is what I recommend:

* get the body only (the first lens I am recommend would be way better for your needs and a much better value than the 15-85mm)
* Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS
* Canon 50mm f/1.4
* Canon 200mm f/2.8L II

If you can't afford all three lenses, you could actually skip the 50mm f/1.4. The 200mm f/2.8L II is just the ticket you need for wildlife. It doesn't have image stabilization, but believe me, it is a much better choice for what you want than the 70-200mm f/4 IS, and actually is hundreds of dollars less expensive. On the 60D body using just the center of the image circle and having a 1.6x crop factor, it is equivalent to the 300mm f/2.8 L II lens. Once you have experienced this lens, any other option seems laughable.

PS. If you can't get the 50mm f/1.4 then the 50mm f/1.8 is a must-have option after you buy the other two lenses, and surely that would make all three fit within your budget. The only thing that I can't stand about the 50mm f/1.8 is its noisy and slow autofocus, but I still have multiple copies of it and can assure you that it is a wonderful lens, and a miracle to be priced so low. It's like a little Leica or Zeiss lens for just $100.


----------



## Alwyn (Apr 13, 2012)

I had the 60d. My personal experience led me to believe that one should rather look at the 550d, 600d or 7d. Mine may just have been a lemon, but then again it may not. Good luck with your decision.


----------



## elflord (Apr 13, 2012)

A 50mm lens for portraits. 200mm or longer for wildlife. 

Look into / budget for a tripod (landscapes), and a flash (portraits).


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 13, 2012)

Alwyn said:


> I had the 60d. My personal experience led me to believe that one should rather look at the 550d, 600d or 7d. Mine may just have been a lemon, but then again it may not. Good luck with your decision.



... um, that's *very* questionable advice if you'd got a broken 60d and don't even describe what the problem was! You can read all about the differences 600d/60d/7d elsewhere, but really there's no bad body in these.



Zo0m said:


> Have you considered the 7D. It's more weatherproofed then the 60D for sure. Good if you're hiking in rainforest. Though you'll need weathersealed lenses to go along with that body.



Remember that the 60d is somewhat sealed, too - mine never crapped out in light rain, and when in doubt there's always the plastic-bag option. A larger lens is a much larger target for rain, so I'd be more concerned about non-sealed ones because the consumer lenses afaik do not have any sealing at all. But if you really want to shoot in the rain for extended periods - get the 7d with better sealing (but still less than "pro" bodies), but there's no warranty on that too if shooting underwater...



gtog said:


> The newer Canon telephoto zoom I would suggest is the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. It is a more compact lens, equal or better IQ than the 100-400, and has the newer 4-stop IS. It does not accept the Canon teleconverters (but will work with the Kenko)



+1 - I've got the 70-300L on a 60d and it's a very good combination for ok lighting conditions. In combination with the 15-85 you should be ready for almost anything except shooting in the dark and creative shots with ultrawide or very thin depth of field.



helpful said:


> The 200mm f/2.8L II is just the ticket you need for wildlife. It doesn't have image stabilization, but believe me, it is a much better choice for what you want than the 70-200mm f/4 IS, and actually is hundreds of dollars less expensive. On the 60D body using just the center of the image circle and having a 1.6x crop factor, it is equivalent to the 300mm f/2.8 L II lens. Once you have experienced this lens, any other option seems laughable.



I wouldn't be so fast to laugh: Of course the 70-200/2.8 is an excellent lens, but imho has some drawbacks: a) physically larger, front-heavy on 60d, less suited for travel, b) no IS which is handy when some animal doesn't move for some time, c) very small depth of field on 2.8 - even when a bird is looking towards you, you need something like f5.6 if you want to have it in focus, d) more need for a good af and af micro adjustment (i.e. not the 60d)

If you want to freeze-shoot something that *really* moves fast your options are limited on 60d: apart from the questionable af tracking, you still need to raise iso pretty high which does show on the crop sensor (same goes for the 7d). Then if you've got to crop on the crop because of the framing when tracking an object, sensor noise gets even worse. That's why everybody is so excited about the 5d3, and sports photogs use an 1d body...


----------



## helpful (Apr 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I wouldn't be so fast to laugh: Of course the 70-200/2.8 is an excellent lens, but imho has some drawbacks: a) physically larger, front-heavy on 60d, less suited for travel, b) no IS which is handy when some animal doesn't move for some time, c) very small depth of field on 2.8 - even when a bird is looking towards you, you need something like f5.6 if you want to have it in focus, d) more need for a good af and af micro adjustment (i.e. not the 60d)



Good comments about the 70-200 f/2.8, but I said the 200mm f/2.8L II. I specifically said prime. It is far lighter, perfectly balanced, and if you haven't used it, you have no place to comment.


----------



## AJ (Apr 13, 2012)

I completely disagree with putting a 50/1.4 on a camera and using it exclusively. Whatever you do, don't do that.

200/2.8 is an okay suggestion. I have this lens and I've taken it to the rainforest in Costa Rica (with 1.4x TC). It's very user unfriendly (no IS, no zoom). 100-400L would be much more user friendly, have a much higher keeper ratio, and it's in the budget.

Now, my suggestion is a little different. Buy the 60D plus 15-85, and add a macro lens. How about a 100/2.8 or 100/2.8L IS. In the rainforest, a lot of wildlife is small and right in front of your eyes. e.g. insects, frogs. There's also foliage detail. You can shoot monkeys and birds that are close by. The lens also doubles up as a great portrait lens. 100/2.8 allows you to play with aperture in order to control DOF. One of my earliest lenses was a Tamron 90/2.8, and it taught me a lot about photography.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 13, 2012)

helpful said:


> Good comments about the 70-200 f/2.8, but I said the 200mm f/2.8L II. I specifically said prime. It is far lighter, perfectly balanced, and if you haven't used it, you have no place to comment.



Wups, missed that - sorry. I guess its because everybody is raving about the 70-200/2.8 that I read this whenever something starts with 200  ... and you're right: Since I didn't use this prime, I cannot comment on its iq (in contast to the 70-200L which I have tried). Having said that: *every* prime does limit flexibility when traveling and not having time to perfectly frame a picture, so that's certainly one thing to consider.



AJ said:


> Now, my suggestion is a little different. Buy the 60D plus 15-85, and add a macro lens.



+1 - that would be my setup if I didn't use my good ol' 28-105 from the 80s. Another advantage of a macro lens is that since it has no minimum focal distance, it's fun to use. But if you don't add another tele lens with IS, best get the 100L if you can afford it.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 13, 2012)

Sartor said:


> I was fist thinking of getting the ES-F 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as my second lens for landscapes, but now I’m wondering if a tele lens might do me better as the difference between 10 and 15 mm isn’t that much.
> How long focal length will I need for 'shooting' animals? My guess is that even the 15-85 mm will be too short even at the long end. So is this 200, 300, 400 mm?
> I will be shooting handheld most of the time, so IS is almost a requirement.
> I’d appreciate any suggestions for primes or zooms lenses. My budget for lenses is 1,500 € at the most.



For the wide end you might also want to think about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - it's a super sharp lens with great contrast for a great price. It's one of my favorite lenses.

On the long end I can really recommend the 70-200mm f4 L - this is currently my favorite lens and I love shooting with it.


----------



## unruled (Apr 13, 2012)

dont worry too much about weather sealing. I've used my 40d and 17-50 tamron in the rainforest for months on end without issues. A tiny bit of foam here and there won't make a huge difference. Keep your money for things that have a bigger impact on your photography.


----------



## gerga (Apr 14, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> One thing that helped me when I first got started: I bought a 50mm f/1.4 and just stuck with that on my Rebel for a long time. It helped me really get a handle on composition and forced me to recompose with my feet, instead of just zooming in/out. I believe I became a better photographer because of it. You can get a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for like $130, probably the best lens anywhere for the money. After that, you can start deciding how to add to your stable.



+1000 on this. 

I'd add that you may want to be careful about investing greatly in EF-S glass. Getting an entry-level body w/EF-S kit lens will offer fantastic walkaround camera/lens versitility. An alternative to picking up a 50mm f1.4 to start with would be to get your hands on the relatively cheap 35mm f/2. This is roughly 50mm on a crop sensor, and so is a great natural-perspective entry point for SLR photography (like old-school 50mm on film camera days!). Down the track you might then look to building your arsenal with quality glass (zooms - e.g. 17-40L or maybe a 28-105L would better completment the EF-S kit options, primes - e.g. 50mm or 85mm options, perhaps; whatever your photography is steering you towards). This would give you great glass for a future upgrate to full frame if that tickles your fancy...?


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 14, 2012)

You may also think about this combination (since you need both an walk-around lens and a tele zoom for wildlife during your trip)

Canon EOS 60D
Tamron 17-50 non-stabilized (at this zoom range stabilization may not be that essential)
EF 100-400mm L

If you want an even wider angle than 17mm, Tokina 12-24 is there or Sigma 8-16.

(Since you are going to rainforest, take lots of Silica Gel packs, and seal-able plastic bags)


----------



## Sartor (Apr 15, 2012)

Thank you for all the replies. It got me thinking quite a lot about which gear to get.

I will definitely go for a tele lens before I buy a wide angle.

The suggested Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 have been in my early considerations, but for some reason it got “replaced” by the Canon 15-85 f/3.5-4.5. I think I’ll end up with the Sigma, mainly because of the better aperture.

I like the idea of the fixed 200 f/2.8L and how it will make me walk around to get the better angle and perspective. I’m just a little concerned about the missing IS. How fast shutter speed is required to get rid of shaken images?

The 70-200 f/4L IS, the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS or the 300 f/4L IS all have IS, but unfortunately at a much higher price than the 200 f/2.8L (non-IS). I was wandering if I should try to extend my budget to get one of these lenses or maybe just go with the cheap 18-55 f/4-5.6 IS lens.

As for a macro lens I hope my G9 will be sufficient until I can afford a real macro lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2012)

Sartor said:


> I’m just a little concerned about the missing IS. How fast shutter speed is required to get rid of shaken images?



IS is no substitute for fast shutter speeds on tele lenses (might work better on mid range zooms). I just have learned this from my 70-300L, and thus have to agree: IS is very convenient, but overrated.

IS is good for close framing (less crop = less noise) and does help you to take ok pictures with long exposure times, but for really sharp pictures you still have to apply the good ol' formula: exposure time = 1 / (lens focal length * crop factor). For a 200mm prime, you should _at_least_ expose with 1/320s on a crop body, for some safety margin and 100% crops on a 18mp sensor I'd strongly advise 1/500s to even less. If your subjects moves like a racecar, you have to go even lower of course.

Last not least: a fast tele lens is no general fix for sensor noise due to the thin depth of field - at 200mm and f2.8, you'll probably be at f4-f5.6 anyway for most shots. I have this comparison because I used to shoot with my 100/2.8 and now have the 70-300/4-5.6.


----------



## koolman (Apr 15, 2012)

My 2 cents

The 60d is an excellent choice. For lenses, in your budget, taking into account wildlife + walkaround (less wide) I would go for:

1) 70-200 f/4 IS

2) Tamron 17-50 non VC

3) canon 50mm 1.8


----------



## RC (Apr 15, 2012)

First of all congrats on the the DSLR purchase! (I remember the excitement of my first SLR) If you haven't already, you will eventually get the "lens" bug and want to add all kinds of glass. 

My number one advice is to not buy too much too soon! Take your time, learn what you have and figure out what your needs are/become based on time and experience.

Here are some options I would seriously consider: 

Buy 
- 10-22
- 24-105
(I didn't do the math but this should be close to your budget)

Rent (for your Malaysia trip)
70-300 or 70-200

The 10-22 plus the 24-105 gives you the perfect walk-around range plus some telephoto. This covers landscapes to moderate telephoto on a crop body. Don't under under estimate the need for a wide lens on a crop body such as the 60D. The only down fall to this combination is swapping lens--but isn't that one one of the benefits of an SLR? 
Haven't been to Malaysia or shooting in a rain forest but I would expect the RF is heavily compressed vegetation. I'm betting the 24-105 (38-168mm FF) is more that sufficient reach for a crop body in the RF. Plus the 24-105 is weather sealed. The 10-22 is not sealed so be carefull.

Now for a telephoto zoom, I would rent and not buy one at this time. I'm assuming this will be used outside the rain forests in more open areas (otherwise I'm betting the 24-105 will do the job). I'm a huge fan of the 70-200 IS lens like many others. For this trip you might want something longer than 200 but when you get back home you might find that a lighter faster 70-200 is the best choice. So rent what you need for your trip and based on your experiences, you can buy a telephoto zoom later.

If you are set on buying a tele zoom now, go for a 70-200L IS--absolutely wonderful lens, IQ, build, etc. I have the F4 version. Between the 2.8 and F4 versions, it comes down to speed or weight, and of course cost.

And if you are set on the 15-85 or 17-55, those are both great lens. Neither are sealed and expect excessive distortion at 15 on the 15-85 and some zoom creep--I use to own the 15-85 but not the 17-55. Personally I'd get the 10-22 and 24-105 and rent a tele zoom

Don't forget HQ filters on your lens for moisture and physical protection. I use B&W UV filters


----------



## Cosk (Apr 15, 2012)

Since this is your first DLSR, you should also consider buying used equipment - you can buy a few lenses on eBay, and sell them for the same or even a little more than you paid in a year or so if they don't fit into your style. Buying used really lowers your financial risk... and as long as you're buying top-end gear, it's usually in good shape. 

Your suggestion of a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 10-22 were my travel combo while I had a cropped body. I also had a 85mm 1.8 and a 24mm f/2 - and those four lenses went around the world with me. 

The 70-200 f/4 IS is wonderful for jungle/wildlife shooting - especially on a cropped body like a 60D.
And the 10-22 is great for capturing the essence of an area... below are some examples of what you can do with these two lenses...

Good luck!


----------



## mr.ranger (Apr 16, 2012)

Sartor said:


> Thank you for all the replies. It got me thinking quite a lot about which gear to get.
> 
> I will definitely go for a tele lens before I buy a wide angle.
> 
> ...



if those telezooms are to much for your budget you can look into 70-300non L. yes its not a L! but its a great start off lens. once you got better budget you can always sell it and upgrade. AS FOR WILDLIFE I WOULD CHOOSE a zoom over prime any day only because fixed length when in reality animals constantly move to different positions and wont have time to move back ten feet so you can get the shot. 
and for macro i would look into 60mm macro lens its great lens i have it on my 60d and love it. and also works as great walk around lens, did i mention its really sharp and cheep!


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 16, 2012)

mr.ranger said:


> if those telezooms are to much for your budget you can look into 70-300non L. yes its not a L! but its a great start off lens. once you got better budget you can always sell it and upgrade. AS FOR WILDLIFE I WOULD CHOOSE a zoom over prime any day only because fixed length when in reality animals constantly move to different positions and wont have time to move back ten feet so you can get the shot.



I've got a different opinion here because I've got the 100-300 non-L and my new 70-300L:

* Don't get a cheap tele zoom, just don't. If the iq @300mm from the cheap one looks worse than a crop from a quality lens @100mm, what's it good for? And even worse, on a cheaper zoom the af is less precise producing much more unfocussed shots.

* You might indeed think of not getting a zoom at all, but a prime. While the 70mm on my 70-300L is very convenient for a quick shot of the surrounding area, I find myself nearly constantly shooting @300mm and will now get a 1.4x tc. Basically, for my outdoor shots I could have gotten 300/4L instead, too. It's just that I might need the zoom for other occasions too in the future like events. I'd advise you to find out about your shooting habits by renting a tele zoom for some time.


----------



## Sartor (Apr 16, 2012)

Cosk said:


> Since this is your first DLSR, you should also consider buying used equipment - you can buy a few lenses on eBay, and sell them for the same or even a little more than you paid in a year or so if they don't fit into your style. Buying used really lowers your financial risk... and as long as you're buying top-end gear, it's usually in good shape.
> 
> Your suggestion of a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 10-22 were my travel combo while I had a cropped body. I also had a 85mm 1.8 and a 24mm f/2 - and those four lenses went around the world with me.
> 
> ...



Those are some very nice photos. I still might get the 12-22 as my third lens, but I will start off with a standard zoom lens and a tele prime or zoom. I have looked a little into the used marked and it seems that the lenses keep their value quite nicely - often only 10-20 % below retail as far as I can see.



Marsu42 said:


> I've got a different opinion here because I've got the 100-300 non-L and my new 70-300L:
> 
> * Don't get a cheap tele zoom, just don't. If the iq @300mm from the cheap one looks worse than a crop from a quality lens @100mm, what's it good for? And even worse, on a cheaper zoom the af is less precise producing much more unfocussed shots.
> 
> * You might indeed think of not getting a zoom at all, but a prime. While the 70mm on my 70-300L is very convenient for a quick shot of the surrounding area, I find myself nearly constantly shooting @300mm and will now get a 1.4x tc. Basically, for my outdoor shots I could have gotten 300/4L instead, too. It's just that I might need the zoom for other occasions too in the future like events. I'd advise you to find out about your shooting habits by renting a tele zoom for some time.



I follow you on this one. I think I’ll be zooming in a lot if I get the tele zoom instead of a prime. However, the flexibility of a zoom is convenient.

I’m going to visit my local camera store and see if I can try out some of the zooms and primes to see what fits me best.


----------



## EOBeav (Apr 17, 2012)

AJ said:


> I completely disagree with putting a 50/1.4 on a camera and using it exclusively. Whatever you do, don't do that.



Nobody said anything about using it "exclusively." My advice was to get a 50mm and use it while you're learning the craft of photography. Huge difference. And lest you think this was my own original idea, it's practice that has been bantered around by many others before me, both here and other sites as well. 

I stand by my original suggestion: Using a 50mm prime while you're learning will help you become a better photographer. The composition in my own images have been suffering somewhat lately, so I'll be using my own 50mm again in the near future.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 18, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > I completely disagree with putting a 50/1.4 on a camera and using it exclusively. Whatever you do, don't do that.
> ...



This might be an ignorant question, but why would using a prime make you a better photographer (or learn to become)? It's just a different way to shoot. I really like to compose by using the zoom and getting the perfect framing for the shot I want. So, during the last two years I can really see a difference in the composition of my pictures (from snapshot in the beginning to making a photo instead of just taking it now) - and I still have a long way to go...


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> This might be an ignorant question, but why would using a prime make you a better photographer (or learn to become)? It's just a different way to shoot.



Imho as a beginner, a prime forces you to think more because you have to zoom with your feet and at the same moment will discover that slight variations of angle might have a large impact on shots. And it's easier to take pictures with your eyes because you know exactly what field of view your camera has, so you have an easier time to transform your joe sixpack's view into a photog's view of things. When you get more advanced and know about these things, you can use a zoom as well because it's just convenient and you can concentrate on the next things to remember like lighting with flashes etc.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 18, 2012)

"Why use a prime like, say, 50mm (or 30mm or 35mm) instead a zoom?"

Many are of the opinion (as apparent from some of the above replies) that using a prime helps the photographer to become a better photographer. Well, that is probably very true. Because it forces (and also allows) the photographers to concentrate on "framing" the composition, consider the angle of (natural) light (which creates different angle of shadow), and consider different points of view for the same scene. This is probably the "purest" way to learn photography. 

However, there is another consideration. The "purest" may not be the "most suitable" for each and everyone out there. There is also a high chance that someone at the beginning of their learning process may loose interest when their photographic angle of view is limited to that of just one focal length. 

I started with 50mm prime only. However, I got bored with it soon and had to buy another lens just for variety. Ok, my second lens was also a prime (85mm - prime due to the fact that good zooms where not in my budget then) but it gave me some variety and kept my interest alive. So, I think it is best to buy a prime and an optically good mid-range zoom together. 

Unfortunately, 50mm on a cropped sensor does not offer a very "attractive" angle of view. A 35mm or 30mm is much better.

Finally, it is sometimes suggested that one does not need a zoom because with a prime one can "zoom with the feet". Well, that is not entirely correct. One can definitely get the same area (in two dimensional term) of the scene by zooming with the feet (with a wider lens) as one would with a tele lens; but, zooming with the foot changes the "point of view" of the photographer with respect to the scene and hence changes the perspective. This definitely changes the composition of the scene. Therefore, zooming with the feet and zooming a zoom lens is not the same thing - for composition.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 18, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> "Why use a prime like, say, 50mm (or 30mm or 35mm) instead a zoom?"
> 
> Many are of the opinion (as apparent from some of the above replies) that using a prime helps the photographer to become a better photographer. Well, that is probably very true. Because it forces (and also allows) the photographers to concentrate on "framing" the composition, consider the angle of (natural) light (which creates different angle of shadow), and consider different points of view for the same scene. This is probably the "purest" way to learn photography.
> 
> ...



I like what you said. Summarizing - one should zoom with lens and feet accordingly to achieve a desired composition


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 18, 2012)

Another reason to use a fast prime, such as the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, is for the shallow Depth of Field. That allows you to blur the background much more easily than with a zoom, especially slow ones (> f/2.8). Doing so makes your subject stand out, aiding with composition.

Remember: years ago, a fast "normal" lens was typically the "kit" lens included with an SLR.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 18, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> I like what you said. Summarizing - one should zoom with lens and feet accordingly to achieve a desired composition



. Well, definitely that is the perfect summary but only of the last paragraph.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 18, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> Another reason to use a fast prime, such as the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, is for the shallow Depth of Field. That allows you to blur the background much more easily than with a zoom, especially slow ones (> f/2.8). Doing so makes your subject stand out, aiding with composition.
> 
> Remember: years ago, a fast "normal" lens was typically the "kit" lens included with an SLR.



Both are so true. A fast prime definitely give much better (and easier) OOF blur than the "slower" zooms (not counting the fantastic zooms like say EF 70-200). And for quite some time after the beginning of the SLR era the "kit" lens used to be a normal lens like 50mm.

However, both of them are completely unrelated to each other. The "normal" lens was not a kit lens because it gave better photos when used properly but rather because first for quite some time the zoom technology was not there and second when the technology became available, the zoom lenses at that point of time were no where near the prime lenses in image quality. From my experience with current primes and zooms I think that gap has been narrowed down quite significantly.

Optically most of the fast primes are excellent and a definite must in the bag of every photographer (at least one of them). However, let's just remember that shallow depth of field (and the resultant OOF blur) even if aesthetically and compositionally nice and pleasing for certain type of photographs, need not be so for other types (of course we can stop down a fast lens to whatever stop we like).


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> . Well, definitely that is the perfect summary but only of the last paragraph.



... which is very common and leads to the extensive discussions about the 5d3: see your own opinion strengthened while ignoring everything else. That's why psychologists find great jobs in marketing!

Concerning zoom vs prime: It's correct that you can use a zoom to frame, but cropping is something you can do later on too - you can even change the distortion of a 35mm to a 50mm with one click in postprocessing if needed and most people probably won't notice if they don't know the original scene. But you cannot change the angle you shot at, and that's what you're forced to think about when using a prime. Zooming with your feet is just a by-product of finding the best angle to shoot at. Of course if your prime is too narrow you're screwed.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RAKAMRAK said:
> 
> 
> > . Well, definitely that is the perfect summary but only of the last paragraph.
> ...



It is not always about the distortion. It is actually about the "angle" (which I have tried argue below at Flickr, have a look if time permits)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alo-chhaya/7091640629/# 


Precisely for finding the "angle" a zoom is better than prime. Cropping won't give us a different angle which we are talking about.

(Do not get me wrong; I am neither against prime nor overtly for zooms, I love both. And out my three lenses two are fast primes. Well relatively faster than the available zooms at least.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> It is not always about the distortion. It is actually about the "angle" (which I have tried argue below at Flickr, have a look if time permits)



Nice image @flickr - and I know about this, that's why I wrote distortion correction is an option *if* the viewer didn't know the original scene and won't notice the angle and distortion don't fit. But here too it can be argued that a prime reduces the numbers of degrees of freedom because you've got a limited choice. With a zoom, what's the best angle? With 35mm? 50mm? 40mm? 41mm? While making up your mind about that, using just two primes you might be further ahead composing the scene while the zoom user still ... well, zooms and walks towards or away from the object to frame.

But to make myself clear, too: I've got zooms and primes (100mm macro, 50mm "normal") and plan to get a 35L - so I'm really not set on anything but try to see both sides.


----------



## AJ (Apr 18, 2012)

There's only one compelling reason why you should learn to shoot with a prime. That's because retro-grouches learned it that way back in the 60s, and therefore you should too.

The advantage of primes is aperture and selective focus, not composition. Zooms are much better for learning composition. The notion that primes "force you to think and zoom with your feet" can easily be simulated by setting a focal length on a zoom _before_ you raise the camera to your eye. 

It is very instructive to take a subject and shoot it at with a variety of focal lengths (say 24, 35, 50 and 85 mm) to see the effect of wideangle, normal, and compressed views. Set the focal length and then "zoom with your feet". In the end this leads to better composition and photography compared to trying to hobble yourself with a single focal length. Learning correct choice of focal length is an essential part of composition.

I would argue that, if you really want a learning tool for composition, you should get a superzoom. Of course there are reasons why a superzoom may not be the best choice (IQ, aperture) but from a composition perspective it can't be beat.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 18, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > I like what you said. Summarizing - one should zoom with lens and feet accordingly to achieve a desired composition
> ...



Ok, Summarizing - one should zoom with lens and feet accordingly to achieve a desired composition, having it learnt using primes (especially 30, 35mm on crop) while still paying attention not to get bored or disinterested. Better? 

Seriously - you're a bit limited to whan you can do having a particular prime on a body attached and nothing helps no matter how you will work with your feet. Below 70, 80 - you have it difficult to frame a good portrait. Having 50 and up - the room can be to small etc. Primes are great when you are prepared to what you are going to shoot sacrifying frames you definitely loose. Landscape, portrait, product, "stylish" street are great for primes. As a general purpose lens it's difficult to find a prime. I think that having ie 15-50 f1.4 and 24-135 f1.8 would bring this discussion to another level


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 18, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> As a general purpose lens it's difficult to find a prime.



Indeed, however the advantage of the 50mm is that it's about the human eyes' angle. But having a lot of mp sure helps because you can crop more and need to zoom less.



AJ said:


> There's only one compelling reason why you should learn to shoot with a prime. That's because retro-grouches learned it that way back in the 60s, and therefore you should too. The notion that primes "force you to think and zoom with your feet" can easily be simulated by setting a focal length on a zoom _before_ you raise the camera to your eye.



Agreed - *if* you can force yourself to do that. I am just too lazy and only discovered new angles when using my 100mm macro (I only use the 50/1.8 for shoot in the dark shots). Thus, a prime is/was very instructive to me, but having learned that I'll settle for zooms too if they had the iq and dof of the 35L. Btw ... 60s??? ... I'm not *that* old


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > As a general purpose lens it's difficult to find a prime.
> ...



Indeed, however portaits made on FF with 50mm look worse, than with 70-100mm, although better than with 24 or 35


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 19, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Ok, Summarizing - one should zoom with lens and feet accordingly to achieve a desired composition, having it learnt using primes (especially 30, 35mm on crop) while still paying attention not to get bored or disinterested. Better?
> 
> Seriously - you're a bit limited to whan you can do having a particular prime on a body attached and nothing helps no matter how you will work with your feet. Below 70, 80 - you have it difficult to frame a good portrait. Having 50 and up - the room can be to small etc. Primes are great when you are prepared to what you are going to shoot sacrifying frames you definitely loose. Landscape, portrait, product, "stylish" street are great for primes. As a general purpose lens it's difficult to find a prime. I think that having ie 15-50 f1.4 and 24-135 f1.8 would bring this discussion to another level



Ahh.. now you are talking....  I would just add one more demand/wish here..... 15-50 f/1.4 "with curved aperture blades". (or the 24-135 with curved blade).......


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 19, 2012)

AJ said:


> There's only one compelling reason why you should learn to shoot with a prime. That's because retro-grouches learned it that way back in the 60s, and therefore you should too.
> 
> The advantage of primes is aperture and selective focus, not composition. Zooms are much better for learning composition. The notion that primes "force you to think and zoom with your feet" can easily be simulated by setting a focal length on a zoom _before_ you raise the camera to your eye.
> 
> ...



+1 - that's what it feels like to me. One can use a zoom like a prime and I don't know how many time one really shoots at f/1.4. I get beautiful OOF shots even with my 70-200mm f/4 and I still am of the opinion that it gives me better IQ and a much nicer look than my 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## Sartor (Apr 20, 2012)

Wow, there is a lot of debate about primes vs. zooms ;D



RAKAMRAK said:


> It is not always about the distortion. It is actually about the "angle" (which I have tried argue below at Flickr, have a look if time permits)
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/alo-chhaya/7091640629/#
> 
> ...



Nice illustration and explanation. It got rid of some of my confusion 

As for my needs I'm starting to get convinced to get the 70-200 zoom. But which model?
As I see it I have two options, as the 2.8 IS is too expensive:
- 70-200 f/2.8 L USM
- 70-200 f/4 L IS USM
These lenses are in the same price range and within my budget if I stretch it a little.

I have also read the posts in: Which 70-200? and What shutter speed is required to overcome the need for IS?

I'm thinking the f/4 IS version would fit me best as most of my shots will me handheld. And the weight is much lower.

A third possibility is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM, but at a higher cost... Does anyone know at which FL the min. aperture goes from 4 to 5.6 by the way? Is it at 200 mm?

Last question:
How often do you use the f/2.8 setting on your lenses? A lot of great pictures I've seen are taken at f/4 or higher.
So, do you use the f/2.8 as a mean to get shallow DOF and OOF or because you are shooting in low light and a higher ISO value is not an option (possible due to noise)?


----------



## gtog (Apr 20, 2012)

Sartor said:


> ...
> A third possibility is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM, but at a higher cost... Does anyone know at which FL the min. aperture goes from 4 to 5.6 by the way? Is it at 200 mm?
> ...



The SLRGear.com review reports the following apertures at the following focal lengths for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM:


Focal length70mm100mm135mm200mm300mmLargest apertureƒ/4ƒ/4ƒ/4.5ƒ/5ƒ/5.6Smallest apertureƒ/32ƒ/32ƒ/36ƒ/40ƒ/45

Of course, I would not be inclined to use any of those "smallest apertures".  
I also do not have a f/2.8 zoom to help answer your last question.

G


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2012)

Sartor said:


> A third possibility is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM, but at a higher cost... Does anyone know at which FL the min. aperture goes from 4 to 5.6 by the way? Is it at 200 mm?



I've got it, and it's f4 up to 100mm, f4.5 up to ~150mm and f5 up to ~220mm (I read it from the scale)



Sartor said:


> How often do you use the f/2.8 setting on your lenses? A lot of great pictures I've seen are taken at f/4 or higher. So, do you use the f/2.8 as a mean to get shallow DOF and OOF or because you are shooting in low light and a higher ISO value is not an option (possible due to noise)?



Excellent question, and one imho is asked way too seldom. I can only report that with my 100mm (macro) lens I nearly don't use 2.8 at all because the dof is so ridiculously thin even at this mid tele range. Sometimes I shoot at 2.8, then rave about the great dof effect and the creamy bokeh, then scrap the shot and shoot at f4+ where the object other than a flat piece of paper is actually 100% in focus and the bokeh is still there. On the other hand, one good reason to get f2.8 is that you can use a 1.4x or even a 2.0x teleconverter with little af degradation.

For the 70-200, f2.8 is great if you've got a good af and shoot indoors like weddings. Not to actually shoot at f2.8 all the time, but the af works way better at f2.8 at low light. For me, it wasn't worth the considerable added weight (70-200/2.8+tc to get outdoor tele range) and price over the 70-300L. I'll get a prime with a really large aperture when I need it later down the road.

My advice if you think about the 70-200/4 vs. the 70-300L: How often do you depend on f4 in the range 135-200mm? If not, think about getting the 70-300L, it even takes a tc too although not the Canon one - I just bought the Kenko 1.4x, af working @f8 ok and iq is as good or bad as with a Canon tc. The 70-200/4 is a bit sharper, but it is at the same time physically longer due to internal focusing, and the iq of a 70-200/4+tc is about the same or worse than a native 70-300L. But there are a lot of other threads about this, but most of the time the decision is really about the 70-200/2.8 vs 70-300L vs. 100-400L.


----------



## papa-razzi (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm sure the 60D is a nice camera. However, the difference between the 60D and T3i is about $300 USD.
If you needed to "compromise" somewhere on budget, that is where I would do it, not on the lenses. The other option is to get a used body. Body's lose their value quickly. Good Lenses do not. I promise you will outgrow your first body in a year or two if you shoot much at all. My first body was an XSi, and it takes amazing pictures. You could pick a used XSi up very cheap - and it will get your through your first year as a DSLR shooter.

Some really great suggestions have been given. Here are mine.
1) Most important and priority #1 - you want a good "general purpose" lens. I suggest the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This is a fantastic lens. I love mine. You will wish you had a lower f-stop if you shoot much indoors and you go with the EF-S 15-85. The 24-105 L is good, but you will need a wide angle lens to go with it. 24mm is not wide enough on a crop camera for what you want to do.

2) Next, you want something really fast to learn about using shallow depth of field, and if you get in really low light situations. Nothing beats the EF 50 f/1.8 for value here. In my opinion, the EF 50 f/1.4 isn't worth the extra money - especially on a crop camera. (I have the 50 f/1.4 and my Daughter has the 50 f/1.8)

3) Last, you want something on the telephoto end. I would go with the EF 70-200 f/4L IS. To me, IS is very important in a hand-held telephoto lens - therefore it is preferred over the non-IS f/2.8 in the same range. This is a very good, affordable L lens. 

If the EF 70-200 f/4L IS exceeds your budget, then go with the EF 70-300 IS non-L. This will do just fine and give you experience. Then you will really know what you want when you spend the big bucks on an L-grade telephoto lens.

I also highly recommend getting a good flash. I recommend the Speedlight 430EX II.

Today's B&H Pricing
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 - $1179
EF 50 f/1.8 - $119
EF 70-200 f/4L IS - $1349
(EF 70-300 IS non-L) - $549
Speedlight 430EX II - $299
Rebel XSi (450D) ebay - $250 - $300

Good luck!


----------



## Cosk (Apr 20, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> I'm sure the 60D is a nice camera. However, the difference between the 60D and T3i is about $300 USD.
> If you needed to "compromise" somewhere on budget, that is where I would do it, not on the lenses. The other option is to get a used body. Body's lose their value quickly. Good Lenses do not.



Completely agree with that... bodies depreciate like stones, but lenses (strangely) appreciate in value. To optimize your investment, buy a camera that's a couple generations old and pair it with fantastic glass... over the long haul, you'll spend a lot less money. I just upgraded to a 5D Classic for $750 off eBay and am thrilled with my 'new' camera. 

30D's are about $250 on eBay and they take fantastic photos. 40Ds are about $350.
The photos I posted above were all taken with a 30D. If you are OK without video... I say used is the way to go... (unless you have unlimited funds.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2012)

Cosk said:


> 30D's are about $250 on eBay and they take fantastic photos. 40Ds are about $350.



... to the op: if you get a used body, at least get a xxd like the 40d ore something because usability is imho much better. Try a 600d and a 60d at a shop, see how it fits your hand and try to change some settings. The reason I recommend this: You won't be able to take good shots no matter how good the lens is if you hate your camera body because you get a cramp in the hand and constantly fiddle around and loose shots because you got the settings wrong. Or because your body craps out the first hit it takes or in light rain because it's note even sealed like a xxd.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 21, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> I'm sure the 60D is a nice camera. However, the difference between the 60D and T3i is about $300 USD.
> If you needed to "compromise" somewhere on budget, that is where I would do it, not on the lenses. The other option is to get a used body. Body's lose their value quickly. Good Lenses do not. I promise you will outgrow your first body in a year or two if you shoot much at all. My first body was an XSi, and it takes amazing pictures. You could pick a used XSi up very cheap - and it will get your through your first year as a DSLR shooter.
> 
> [...]
> ...



Getting an older body is fine, but you should make sure that it fits your needs. My first body was a 450D and the AF is really bad. I like to shoot moving objects once in a while and the AF Servo is really not good - on top of that the fps is very low, which means you will miss a lot of nice shots, if you shoot some sports or moving animals or even just your wife walking towards you (the last is more of an AF Servo issue).
On top of that I agree with Marsu that you should get a body, which fits your hands and where you like the ergonomics.

Honestly I would save money on the IS in your 70-200mm ($700 cheaper than IS). The 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS) is a wonderful lens and as discussed in another thread you will almost never use it indoors on a crop body (it's just too long). Outdoors the light is almost all the times bright enough to get a speed of 1/200s or faster. Furthermore this lens is sharp at f/4, which means you don't have to stop it down to get great pictures.


----------



## aznable (Apr 22, 2012)

Sartor said:


> I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.



i dont like the 60D...maybe is a better idea to get a 7d/50D used body; if you need a fast and advanced autofocus, god for the 7D


> I like to photograph landscapes and animal as well as portraits.
> 
> As for lenses, I have read that the EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good choice for an all-round starting lens so I’ll buy that unless you convince me otherwise
> 
> ...



the differences between lenses like the 15-85 and other lenses like canon 10-22 , sigma 8-16 and so on is the huge distorsion you will get at short end of the lens; for example on the sigma at 8mm the distorsion is near the half you will get with the 15-85 @15mm and both wide-lenses become flat @15mm.

anyway i dont think is a good idea to buy a wide angle lens from the start, it's surely better to experience with an all around lens and in the future consider more specialized lenses.

you are right, you will need a tele, but the length depends on which subject/distances you think to shoot

you will go with tamron 70-300 VC USD; decent performance for a low price

for low light shooting then i suggest the sigma 50mm F/1.4 thats usable @1.4 and very sharp from 2.8


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 22, 2012)

aznable said:


> Sartor said:
> 
> 
> > I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.
> ...



What do you dislike about the 60D? It has significantly better AF than the xxxD series, it has significantly improved burst rate (and 5.3 fps is enough for most people) and it's considerably cheaper than the 7D (here in Switzerland it's a $450 difference). Of course the 7D gives you an extremely good AF and even higher burst rate, but do most people really need this?

The 50D is a great camera - a friend of mine has it and I really like it. So, this might be a valid option, if the 60D doesn't have anything that justifies the higher price for you. (The flip-out screen did it for me, because it enables me to take pictures really low to the ground or above my head without guessing what I'm shooting or getting into advanced yoga positions).


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 22, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > Sartor said:
> ...


Fyi: The burst rate of the 60d is even higher than Canon says in Live view or when disabling jpeg. But apart from that, we've been through the 60d vs 7d time and time again, it's really a matter what is required and if it's worth the price difference. I wouldn't want a 7d because it doesn't run magic lantern which is *the* killer feature that sets most Canons (50d to 5d2) apart from Nikon. But are scenarios where the 7d's improved tracking af does make sense. If anyone wants to know about specifics, I'm happy to help, but general comparisons imho don't help.

One persistent problem with the 7d is that it's got the worst image quality of all 18mp bodies (see http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm): Since it's basically a turbo-charged rebel using two cpus, it introduces unrecoverable noise banding that the other newer bodies (600d, 60d) don't have.


----------



## Alwyn (May 1, 2012)

Let me see, what was the problem with my 60d? Dead pixels, Poor AF in low light, Excessive noise at ISO 3200, a shutter mechanism which behaved like it was on it's way out within the first month of ownership.


----------



## !Xabbu (May 1, 2012)

Alwyn said:


> Let me see, what was the problem with my 60d? Dead pixels, Poor AF in low light, Excessive noise at ISO 3200, a shutter mechanism which behaved like it was on it's way out within the first month of ownership.



Dead pixels and shutter mechanism issues within the first month - unless you bought it on the black market, there should be no problem about getting it replaced under warranty. Sounds to me like you got a defective 60D from the get go.

It's known that the 18MP APS-C from the 60D (and also 7D and 600D) doesn't behave too well with high ISO. There are enough reviews stating this - so, it seems like you didn't do your homework.

Poor AF in low light compared to what? A 1D body - of course | the 5D II - I don't think so, the 60D is clearly better than 5D II | a P&S - no way...

The 60D is the cheapest body above the Rebels - you can't expect the same performance from a $1,000 piece of equipment as from a $3,500 camera...


----------



## re:k photographie (May 2, 2012)

My first lens above kits was a used EF 28-105 f3.5/4.5 II USM that I bough for around $200 including hood, caps & filter. It has not been on a body in years, not since I got my 24-70 L & my 70-200 2.8 L IS. But I will never sell it because I have sentimental attachment to that glass; it is where I cut my teeth.

I mention this because I think for just starting out you can get some really good--not great--but very good glass for less than $250 (an old EF 28-105 USM or maybe a EF 24-135 IS USM) without breaking the bank & with the option to use them FF if you go that direction someday.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 2, 2012)

Sartor said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm buying my first dSLR and I'm looking for some advice.
> 
> ...



Here is the best sharpest setup for Little $$$

Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 - 480$

Canon 50mm 1.8 - 120$

Canon 100mm F/2 - 480$.

I could honestly do all my work with that lens setup. It covers a pretty broad range on APS-c and covers low light situtations also.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 2, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Here is the best sharpest setup for Little $$$: Canon 50mm 1.8 - 120$



Since you mention the 50/1.8 (I've got it, I'm sorry to say), you're obviously not speaking of sharp at open aperture. And in this case: Every lens is sharp stopped down, so the interesting piece of information is when a lens starts to get sharp enough for what print size or resolution and when (if ever) it start to get sharp enough for 18mp @100% crop.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 3, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the best sharpest setup for Little $$$: Canon 50mm 1.8 - 120$
> ...



Name me a lens that's a 1.8 and sharper wide open for a 100$ with the same feature set and I'll recommend it. The point is that it's the sharpest for the $$$.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Name me a lens that's a 1.8 and sharper wide open for a 100$ with the same feature set and I'll recommend it. The point is that it's the sharpest for the $$$.



Of course the 50/1.8 has a ridiculously good iq for the $$$ because of long-term mass production, horrible af and crappy build quality. And I'd recommend it to anyone on an absolute budget who doesn't crop pictures or does large-prints. But I'd advise people to be aware of the drawbacks which makes the price possible, esp. if you've got it in a list with the 100/2...


----------



## RLPhoto (May 3, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Name me a lens that's a 1.8 and sharper wide open for a 100$ with the same feature set and I'll recommend it. The point is that it's the sharpest for the $$$.
> ...



Itd be nice if canon would revamp there 35mm f/2. The Nikkor 35mm 1.8g is such a good lens for the $$$ and the canon 35mm is not very good. If theyd release a version II of the 35mm f/2, I'd recommend that over the 50 1.8 anyday.


----------



## Sartor (May 19, 2012)

Hi again

I have now bought a camera and two lenses. I ended up buying a 60D (new) with an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (used). After two weeks I bought the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (new).

This is a gigantic step upwards from my 9G compact and I absolutely love it!
All the new controls, settings, the way to shoot and the viewfinder is all very different – but in a good way.
The most significant changes over the G9 are obviously speed and image quality.

I my opinion the 17-55 makes a good focal length for all-round group pictures and landscapes plus for indoor use. The 70-300L is absolutely useless for that. But for details, animals and far away objects it’s amazing! I can’t wait to get to Malaysia and shoot some wildlife. I this this is really where the 70-300L will shine


----------



## !Xabbu (May 19, 2012)

Sartor said:


> Hi again
> 
> I have now bought a camera and two lenses. I ended up buying a 60D (new) with an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (used). After two weeks I bought the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (new).
> 
> ...



Congratulations - have fun with it!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2012)

Sartor said:


> I my opinion the 17-55 makes a good focal length for all-round group pictures and landscapes plus for indoor use. The 70-300L is absolutely useless for that. But for details, animals and far away objects it’s amazing! I can’t wait to get to Malaysia and shoot some wildlife. I this this is really where the 70-300L will shine



You've got a great setup now that'll keep you busy for years, congratulations, imho a good choice. Just remember that even with the IS of the 70-300L, if you want sharp pictures @300mm of anything that is *slightly* moving (animal breathing, plants moving in the wind not noticeable with the bare eye) you still need fast shutter speeds.


----------



## bycostello (May 19, 2012)

spend more on the lens than the camera and more on the training than the lens


----------



## Sartor (May 19, 2012)

bycostello said:


> spend more on the lens than the camera and more on the training than the lens



First one is done now. I'm on with the training and I'm getting better each day.
My main focus at the moment is to learn how to use the autofocus and how to get it right each time.

I'm also starting to realize how this hobby is going to consume most (if not all) of my money over the next couple of years. There is still a lot of cool gear to get. 

The top of my wishinglist is a flash, a good tripod and a pol filter. And an ND filter.
I've never tried filters but it seems to me thay they can add an extra set of "features" to the camera. Exciting


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2012)

Sartor said:


> The top of my wishinglist is a flash, a good tripod and a pol filter. And an ND filter.



Looking at the prices of good filters, I'd advise you to get a 430ex2 flash first because you'll use it more often. It works as a remote flash with the 60d, too, so you can use your built-in flash for fill and the external flash for directional light or bounce. The built-in flash is surprisingly ok, but it doesn't have much power & doesn't do hss (high-speed sync) and thus only fires up to 1/250s - but that's not enough for using it with the 70-300L.


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Sartor said:
> 
> 
> > The top of my wishinglist is a flash, a good tripod and a pol filter. And an ND filter.
> ...



I believe the 60d doesn't support off camera hss

Get a 580EX/EXII for the extra power and HSS


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I believe the 60d doesn't support off camera hss. Get a 580EX/EXII for the extra power and HSS



You're correct - I didn't even notice it until now since I only use hss at tele range with the flash mounted. When I use remote flash, it's for macro, and in this case the shutter speed is slower than 1/250s anyway. The 580ex2 as a master makes the 480ex2 do remote hss?


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the 60d doesn't support off camera hss. Get a 580EX/EXII for the extra power and HSS
> ...



Yes it does. 

Options:

Get a master such as a:
580EX2
ST-E2 (just a IR controller)
MR14-EX (ring flash)
MT-24EX (macro flash)

The other way is to use other brand wireless controllers such as Pocket Wizard, Odins, Pixel King that give full eTTL control

The PW mini/flex system has its own HSS implementation that uses less power and gives faster recycle time. Their approach means the switch to HSS is seamless in that the shutter speed detirmines whether HSS is to used or not, whereas on the Canon system it has to be physically turned on


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The PW mini/flex system has its own HSS implementation that uses less power and gives faster recycle time. Their approach means the switch to HSS is seamless in that the shutter speed determines whether HSS is to used or not, whereas on the Canon system it has to be physically turned on



Thanks for the information! Since the Canon radio tech is so expensive and still doesn't to remote 2nd curtain sync I guess it's still the best option to get the older IR tech with radio addons ... at the moment at least, when Canon starts only selling 600rt/440rt the 3rd party solutions might be a dead end?

Pushing one button on the flash thus isn't the biggest problem (it still does x-sync up to 1/250s), but it's indeed strange that Canon lets users push a button anyway now that you mention it.


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The PW mini/flex system has its own HSS implementation that uses less power and gives faster recycle time. Their approach means the switch to HSS is seamless in that the shutter speed determines whether HSS is to used or not, whereas on the Canon system it has to be physically turned on
> ...



The PW approach means that any eTTL flash can be used - including for example the non HSS, non IR speedlite such as the Nissin 622 - which means cheap speedlites can be used.

Currently the Canon 600 doesn't support the old IR speedlights will need to be supported for some time. I currently use a mixture of Nissin/430EXII/580EX/580EXII speedlights. I need quantity of lights so the ability to utilise cheaper speedlights is good news for me. 

At the moment 550EX are very cheap so I might be adding several of those. 

It is the ability to seamlessly move to HSS which is a big plus to me - I shoot a lot at 1/1000 - and the low power take/quick refresh is important to me


----------

