# soon to be a 'Canon/DSLR newbie' here!



## AdrianAllen (Dec 2, 2012)

Hi guys. Just like the title says, i'm going to be a future owner of my first SLR. Coming from a P&S background, I had the *Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18* for about 5yrs I think. I had no training whatsoever in taking pictures(taking indoor stuff/landscapes/nightscapes/people generally those who/things doesn't mind being taken a picture of. I'd love to start taking street photography though). And at often times I take videos with friends. With that said, I've decided to get a *60d* for my first one.

I know this will not be new to everyone, but i'm really having a hard time choosing what lens should I start off with. I'm stuck in between the *18-135mm kit lens* or *50mm f1.4* because their price difference is only about 100euros. *60d kit (18-135mm)* = 1000euro. *60d body only + 50mm f1.4* = 1100euro

Questions, *1)* *image quality* wise, which of the two excel? *2)* which would be better in low light or bright light? *3)* Will I be missing out on the reach of the *18-135mm* (close-ups/ tele) _IF_ I do decide to get the *50mm f1.4*?

Any input would be highly appreciated. THANKS!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2012)

AdrianAllen said:


> Questions, *1)* *image quality* wise, which of the two excel? *2)* which would be better in low light or bright light? *3)* Will I be missing out on the reach of the *18-135mm* (close-ups/ tele) _IF_ I do decide to get the *50mm f1.4*?



1) The 50/1.4 will have better IQ when stopped down narrower than f/2. 

2) The 50/1.4 will be better in low light - it lets in ~4 to 16 times as much light as the zoom lens. But...shooting at f/1.4 also means a very shallow depth of field, especially if your subject is close. 

3) Yes, you'll probably miss the reach. You'll almost certainly miss the wide end, particularly since you mention shooting indoors. 

I'd get the 18-135mm kit lens, and consider the cheaper 50/1.8 initially - versatility of a zoom plus low light capability of a fast prime for a reasonable cost.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Dec 2, 2012)

Welcome to the forum.

Neuro answered your questions, but I have one for you: have you considered the latest Rebel versus the 60D? Generally, the T4i's about $300 cheaper than the 60D, the features are in the same league and both cameras will produce about the same image quality. If you become serious about photography- you're likely going to upgrade from either of these models, anyway. The T4i would get you started and leave something in the budget for lenses or other accessories.


----------



## AdrianAllen (Dec 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AdrianAllen said:
> 
> 
> > Questions, *1)* *image quality* wise, which of the two excel? *2)* which would be better in low light or bright light? *3)* Will I be missing out on the reach of the *18-135mm* (close-ups/ tele) _IF_ I do decide to get the *50mm f1.4*?
> ...



I got a little confused here. You praised the 50/1.4 at almost all the questions. but still pointed me back at the kit lens? And i've heard that the it's better to get the 1.4 compared to the 1.8 since it only has a bit of difference in price.



wellfedCanuck said:


> Neuro answered your questions, but I have one for you: have you considered the latest Rebel versus the 60D? Generally, the T4i's about $300 cheaper than the 60D, the features are in the same league and both cameras will produce about the same image quality. If you become serious about photography- you're likely going to upgrade from either of these models, anyway. The T4i would get you started and leave something in the budget for lenses or other accessories.



Thanks! Yes I did consider getting the 650d/t4i first. But it was kinda small, and looking at Canons releases of rebels, they release a new one every year. With my buying pattern, I don't think I will be getting another one in about 5yrs time so I decided to get the higher end one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2012)

AdrianAllen said:


> I got a little confused here. You praised the 50/1.4 at almost all the questions. but still pointed me back at the kit lens? And i've heard that the it's better to get the 1.4 compared to the 1.8 since it only has a bit of difference in price.



Well, yes...that's exactly what I did. The best choice would be to get the 18-135 _and_ the 50/1.4. But I wasn't sure that was viable from a cost standpoint. Even better would be the 15-85mm lens and the 50/1.4. Plus a good tripod for nightscapes. Or the 5DIII and several L lenses. Just stop me when the cost gets too high... 

My point was that the 18-135 + 50/1.8 is in the price range under discussion (a little less than the 60D + 50/1.4, I believe), not a couple hundred € extra. 

Here's the thing - the 50/1.4 may offer slightly better IQ, but how much will that help if you hit the wall of the room before you can back up far enough to frame your shot?

Since you're talking about an APS-C camera, having just a 50mm lens means your only lens behaves as a short telephoto lens. Now, if you stated you were getting this setup solely to shoot portraits, I'd say the 60D + 50/1.4 would be great. But for, "indoor stuff/landscapes/nightscapes/people (and) street," if you're going to have one lens, a zoom is a better choice. A normal prime would possibly be ok (like a Sigma 30/1.4). But not a short tele prime, IMO.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd get the 18-135mm kit lens, and consider the cheaper 50/1.8 initially - versatility of a zoom plus low light capability of a fast prime for a reasonable cost.



+1 
Yes, when it is a new venture, you want to have versatility the most so you don't sour soon or feel frustrated... being stuck with one focal length will do that to most people. You will find the 50mm rather tough in cramped spaces. Plus, on the crop-sensor it is not even a "normal" lens really, it is a "portrait lens" and will not be wide enough for kids running around indoors. With the zoom, you may have to work on the higher ISO end but 60D will do ok within limits here. 

Hands down I will go with the zoom first and then expand out to primes. Else you may feel a tad cramped 

Edit: Dang! Neuro covered the portrait lens part as I was typing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2012)

Just to add - if you've got the budget for the 60D, 18-135 kit, and 50/1.4, you might still be better off getting the 50/1.8...and a 430EX II. Yes, the 60D has a built-in flash...but nothing says point-and-shoot snapshot like the popup flash. It's great for fill light outdoors, but as a main flash indoors, a 430EX II bounced off the ceiling will look a lot better.


----------



## jondave (Dec 2, 2012)

Welcome to the club, you're on your way to becoming a poor man. 

Get the longest zoom you can find, I would say even a third party 18-270mm. IQ should be the least of your concerns, anything you get will have better IQ than your P&S. Since you're just starting out you'll need flexibility and range, the zoom gives you so much freedom to develop your style.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 2, 2012)

wellfedCanuck said:


> Neuro answered your questions, but I have one for you: have you considered the latest Rebel versus the 60D? Generally, the T4i's about $300 cheaper than the 60D, the features are in the same league



... but not the usability, the larger size, the lcd screen and back dial make a large difference in handling (at least to me).


----------



## 2n10 (Dec 2, 2012)

Welcome and congrats. Read your manual and take shots of averything you can with multiple settings. Digital pics are real cheap.


----------



## AdrianAllen (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, yes...that's exactly what I did. The best choice would be to get the 18-135 _and_ the 50/1.4. But I wasn't sure that was viable from a cost standpoint. Even better would be the 15-85mm lens and the 50/1.4. Plus a good tripod for nightscapes. Or the 5DIII and several L lenses. Just stop me when the cost gets too high...



;D Well that escalated quickly. And yes, that's obviously out of the question. maybe if I decide to sell me liver in the near future, i'd get that setup. At the moment, I only have the resources to get 18-135 OR 50/1.4. ;D Really thanks for the input. That made me really rethink about my choices 

You're right there, the kit lens+50/1.8 would cost less 

EDIT:
Hmmm 15-85mm? It costs around 800$(750euro) Wouldn't there be an L lens in that price range? *Not planning to buy one soon, just curious.*



jondave said:


> Welcome to the club, you're on your way to becoming a poor man.



What a nice way to welcome a newbie LOL! A little bit depressing if you think about it, but still.. LOL!



Marsu42 said:


> ... but not the usability, the larger size, the lcd screen and back dial make a large difference in handling (at least to me).



My thoughts exactly. Since I'm coming from a P&S cam, I would love to at least get out of the P&S feel of the cam. I've tested my GF's dslr, which is BTW a Nikon 3100(yes I know, conflict of interest, but still.. ) and it was too small for me, and was almost the same size as my former camera. Wasn't for me.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 3, 2012)

Do you see yourself getting more serious about photography? Why not go directly to FF? If you have the money, you can go for a 6D or 5D2 for just a little bit more. If not, go for a 5D classic. 5D + 50mm F1.4 + flash will go a long way. You can add lenses as you go. If you see yourself going FF sometime soon, don't waste your money on an APS-C body and lens. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Sony (Dec 3, 2012)

jondave said:


> Welcome to the club, you're on your way to becoming a poor man.


You're right! I'am poorer after getting married with Canon.
But I'am happier.


----------



## PeterJ (Dec 3, 2012)

I'd agree with advice so far of the 18-135mm for versatility and a 50/1.8. The other thing would be to get the zoom first, dial-in to 50mm and see how you like that focal length. My first DSLR was was a 450D with a kit lens and I used that to work out which focal lengths I liked before bankrupting myself on other lenses . Personally I did really like 50mm on a crop, and a 50/1.4 was my first non-kit lens but I wouldn't have been happy with it as a single lens.

For low-light you could also consider a Yongnuo flash which is roughly similar cost to the 50/1.8. I've only used Canon flashes myself but a lot of people here seem to be enthusiastic about them, especially considering the cost versus a Canon speedlite.


----------



## jondave (Dec 3, 2012)

Sony said:


> You're right! I'am poorer after getting married with Canon.
> But I'am happier.



I believe it's an affair you have with Canon, not marriage. Marriage is supposed to make you poorer AND miserable. ;D


----------



## billnelson75 (Dec 3, 2012)

The first thing I purchased after I bought my DSLR/kit lens combo was the 50 f1.8, and I enjoyed it so much, I almost stopped using my kit lens completely after that. The IQ difference, and ability to adjust aperture down to 1.8 is a great advantage. 

*Whatever you do, I would leave yourself some $$$ to get the 50mm f1.8.* 

I also have the f1.4, and it is definitely better built, but you can learn and do so much more with the f1.8 over your kit lens. I also liked having a smaller/lighter lens on my DSLR when I was going out shooting. I would put the kit lens in my shoulder bag and walk around with the DSLR/50mm around my neck. The 50mm is a great focal lenghth, yes it will limit you at times, but that is why I carried the kit lens in my bag, just in case I was somewhere that I needed to go real wide or zoom in. Otherwise, I shot almost everything with my 50, and the IQ difference is pretty big.

Also, just to mentioned, you said you are interested in the 60d as you plan to hold onto it for 5 years, but that model is 2 years old, and the t4i is the latest rebel model. I haven't researched this, but I think the t4i might have better ISO performance, and while many other features are great to have, that is a big one to consider and research. I do know that the t4i has the newest digic processor, while the 60d has the previous generation of processor. Just something to think about. If I plan to keep a piece of technology for 5 years, I prefer to have the most recent iteration of said technology, for that reason, I'd look strongly at the t4i. Especially if its cheaper, and even more so if the ISO performance is stronger, as I suspect it might be.


----------



## marinien (Dec 3, 2012)

AdrianAllen said:


> EDIT:
> Hmmm 15-85mm? It costs around 800$(750euro) Wouldn't there be an L lens in that price range? *Not planning to buy one soon, just curious.*



I am with Neuro here. Compare to the 18-135, the 15-85 seems to deliver superior image quality (I haven't owned the 18-135). To me, on a x1.6 crop body, the 15-17 range is far more important than the 86-135 range.

I had the combo 1DIIN + 24-105L, then I got the 7D + 15-85. I sold the 1DIIN. Then I sold the 24-105 and kept the 15-85. The 15-85 is the better lens on a x1.6 crop body.


----------



## eddiemrg (Dec 3, 2012)

15-85 is so damn good...!
IQ is competitive if compared to an L series


----------



## AdrianAllen (Dec 3, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Do you see yourself getting more serious about photography? Why not go directly to FF? If you have the money, you can go for a 6D or 5D2 for just a little bit more. If not, go for a 5D classic. 5D + 50mm F1.4 + flash will go a long way. You can add lenses as you go. If you see yourself going FF sometime soon, don't waste your money on an APS-C body and lens. Just my 2 cents.



Who doesn't want a full frame camera? Of course I do. I've been looking around for the 5D2 also, lowest i've seen is about 1600-1700euro now, I know it's only a couple of hundreds difference, But it still won't even be close to my budget. Its too expensive for me who's having a hard time even choosing between a kit lens and a 50/1.4  And i've seen the 6d. It's build quality is no better(IMO) than the 60d, the only difference is that the former one is a FF.



jondave said:


> I believe it's an affair you have with Canon, not marriage. Marriage is supposed to make you poorer AND miserable. ;D



I sense someone who's not happy with his marriage 



billnelson75 said:


> Also, just to mentioned, you said you are interested in the 60d as you plan to hold onto it for 5 years, but that model is 2 years old, and the t4i is the latest rebel model. I haven't researched this, but I think the t4i might have better ISO performance, and while many other features are great to have, that is a big one to consider and research. I do know that the t4i has the newest digic processor, while the 60d has the previous generation of processor. Just something to think about. If I plan to keep a piece of technology for 5 years, I prefer to have the most recent iteration of said technology, for that reason, I'd look strongly at the t4i. Especially if its cheaper, and even more so if the ISO performance is stronger, as I suspect it might be.



The thing is, they almost always bring out a rebel every year. I would rather get the one who can stand the next of time(60d) over the one who gets replaced every year. Unless they would release an upgrade for the 60d 1st-2nd quarter of next year. And if I remember correctly from all the reviews I've read/watched, you really can't see the difference in the image quality between the digic4 and digic5+, canon improved it mostly for the video capabilities of the camera(correct me if i'm wrong).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

AdrianAllen said:


> EDIT:
> Hmmm 15-85mm? It costs around 800$(750euro) Wouldn't there be an L lens in that price range? *Not planning to buy one soon, just curious.*



The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is even more expensive. IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C, and the 15-85mm is a close second. Both lenses are of L-series optical quality (as is the 10-22mm), but not build quality. Compared to the 24-105L or 17-40L, those three EF-S lenses (17-55, 15-85, 10-22) actually deliver better IQ than the 24-105 and 17-40 L lenses on the same APS-C camera (and the 17-55 outperforms the 16-35L II on APS-C, I know from personal experience). 

The 17-40mm is sort of 'general purpose' (a little short on the long end) on APS-C, the 24-105 isn't in that category (it gives the FF-equivalent AoV of 38-168mm on APS-C, meaning it's normal to tele, and a general purpose zoom should cover wide to short tele).

The only times I'd recommend one of the L lenses over the 17-55 or 15-85 are if you have a 7D (decent weather sealing) and need a sealed lens to use in inclement weather, or if you have both FF and APS-C or are getting a FF in the very near future (weeks/months, not years).


----------



## aj1575 (Dec 3, 2012)

AdrianAllen said:


> Questions, *1)* *image quality* wise, which of the two excel? *2)* which would be better in low light or bright light? *3)* Will I be missing out on the reach of the *18-135mm* (close-ups/ tele) _IF_ I do decide to get the *50mm f1.4*?


I would also recommend you the EF-S 15-85. It has a very good range. The 15mm will save you from buying a wide angle in the near future, and 85 is already quite good. If you like more reach you can still add a tele (55-250mm or something like that in the future). If you like to buy a prime, then I would also consider the 35mm f2, it is rather old but it is very cheap for what you get, and it is has a more interesting focal length on a APS-C. I own the 50mm 1.4 and the 35mm f2, and even if the 50 is opicaly better, I use the 35 much more often.

To the body. If you deceide to go with the 15-85 (which I would now with the knowledge I've got after several years of shooting DSLR), but it seems to expensive, then you should also consider a 650D. It will save you some money, which you can invest into the lens. IQ will be the same on both cameras (same sensor), and there aren't that many features you will miss in the beginning.

You most likely will switch the body after 4-5years, but you will keep your lenses for a longer time. The 15-85 is for APS-C something like the 24-105 L is for FF, there are just no L-Lenses for APS-C


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 3, 2012)

> Who doesn't want a full frame camera? Of course I do. I've been looking around for the 5D2 also, lowest i've seen is about 1600-1700euro now, I know it's only a couple of hundreds difference, But it still won't even be close to my budget. Its too expensive for me who's having a hard time even choosing between a kit lens and a 50/1.4  And i've seen the 6d. It's build quality is no better(IMO) than the 60d, the only difference is that the former one is a FF.



6D is weather sealed. 60D isn't. IQ, ISO performance and DR is way above what you can get from 60D. Sorry but that's not a small thing. If you don't have that kind of money and if you don't need video, 5D classic will perform much better than 60D. It's a little bit cheaper also but you'll get better IQ. If you can find a 5D classic that's not used much + 50mm 1.4/1.8, it will produce a lot better pictures than 60D and any kit lens that you can think of. 
That said, it's still up to you. I'm just here to share my outlook on photography. Whether you listen to my advice or not, it's your money. Happy shooting.


----------



## Rams_eos (Dec 3, 2012)

I did have the same decision to make last year.

I purchased the 600D (T3i) with the 18-55 kit and a 70-200 F4 L is.

I was using Minolta SLR for long. Then moved to Canon G9 then G10.
What I can say is that I have been very disappointed by the lack “pleasure” to use the 600D. I found it not easy to use if you want to setup manually.
The image quality is very good, with the 70-200L you get quality you don’t even think the sensor is capable of . The lens make the difference.
In the price range, the 7D is a bit bulky and heavy. The 5D2 does not have a built in flash.
I would definitively go for 60D unless you are doing a lot of video (for video, 650D is better).

The replacement should arrive in a few month but I suspect the price of the new model will be much higher .
So now, I would get the best deal on 60D to get a very good camera.
If there is some cash left, the 17-55 is just amazing. Try to get a good second hand one.
Otherwise, the 18-135 is a very good all-purpose travel lens.

Anyway, welcome to this forum.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 3, 2012)

Everyone has valid points here. There is no right or wrong answer I don't think. Here is my take: I have a thing for primes and especially for the 50mm "normal" range. I would stay away from the zoom lens for now and buy a prime that makes most sense to what you want to do and learn. Problem is that on a "crop" camera like the 60D your 50mm lens is really more like an 85mm lens. That can be great but takes away from the versatility of the old fashioned "normal" lens approach. So if you want to learn photography the old fashioned way and you are attracted to the 50mm because of that then I would look at something in the 30mm range or even less (crop factor on Canon is x1.6, so a 30 would be 48mm equivalent; 35=56mm which can be great).

If it was me and this was what I'd have to work with I would check if my budget allows for one of the decent 30 or 35mm lenses and maybe the 85 1.8 for a short tele (135mm full frame equivalent). I personally believe that what you're going to learn with that kind of combo will be more valuable than going for one of the super-duper-everything zooms that are not great quality and limit your options with respect to control over depth of field.

And just to mention it: given their low cost (relatively speaking) the 50 1.8 and the new 40mm lens would always be under consideration in my book.


----------



## AdrianAllen (Dec 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is even more expensive. IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C, and the 15-85mm is a close second. Both lenses are of L-series optical quality (as is the 10-22mm), but not build quality. Compared to the 24-105L or 17-40L, those three EF-S lenses (17-55, 15-85, 10-22) actually deliver better IQ than the 24-105 and 17-40 L lenses on the same APS-C camera (and the 17-55 outperforms the 16-35L II on APS-C, I know from personal experience).



I'll keep these in mind. Actually taking notes now 

A quick addition to the mix-up. While I've been looking around for all of your suggestions, I saw another kit lens/bundle (I don't know which is which really) which had a 17-85mm that only had like 80euro difference from the 18-135mm kit. Would I be getting more for my money if I should get that 17-85mm over the 18-135mm? Or should I just save it up for another lens? Thanks again and sorry if i'm being to fickle minded.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 5, 2012)

It may be worth checking out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I've heard nothing but good things and it would be close to the equivalent of 50mm on full frame (which is a very versatile focal length). I think they are under $400 used.

Can you not get in on the B&H 60D deal ($899 for 60D+18-135 and a few other things)?


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 5, 2012)

AdrianAllen said:


> I'll keep these in mind. Actually taking notes now
> 
> A quick addition to the mix-up. While I've been looking around for all of your suggestions, I saw another kit lens/bundle (I don't know which is which really) which had a 17-85mm that only had like 80euro difference from the 18-135mm kit. Would I be getting more for my money if I should get that 17-85mm over the 18-135mm? Or should I just save it up for another lens? Thanks again and sorry if i'm being to fickle minded.


All I have read about the 17-85 says it is not very good, definitely not better than the new 18-135 STM, and I believe not better than the old 18-135 either


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2012)

AdrianAllen said:


> I saw another kit lens/bundle (I don't know which is which really) which had a 17-85mm that only had like 80euro difference from the 18-135mm kit.



No, take the 18-135 over the 17-85 - the latter is an older design, IQ is not quite as good as the 18-135mm.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> 6D is weather sealed. 60D isn't.



It isn't as simple as that - sealing is not a binary value - its Rebels < 60D < 6D < 5D3 < 1D ... I don't know how the 7d does in comparison to the 6d. The 60d has some sealing (but not at the lens mount point, so with an L lens it's only one side), but I shot in light rain with no problems. The added sealing on the 6d wouldn't make me confident enough to actually shoot in prolonged rain, and even 5d3 users broke their camera doing that - so water "sealing" is more for the peace of mind, for actual "safety" you'll need a 1d body.

Thus dust sealing is more important to me, and in this category even the 60d should do ok (unless non-sealed lenses, esp. zooms which will attract dust and sand like a magnet).


----------



## NormanBates (Dec 5, 2012)

To get an idea about how cameras and lenses work, what you need and why:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/index.html

Some recommendations of lenses for Canon, on a budget:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html


----------



## AdrianAllen (Dec 5, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Can you not get in on the B&H 60D deal ($899 for 60D+18-135 and a few other things)?



I would if only I could, but I live in Europe. So it's a no go. ATM that said set costs around 1000euro + 50euro rebate, that's good enough for me.



Marsu42 said:


> Thus dust sealing is more important to me, and in this category even the 60d should do ok (unless non-sealed lenses, esp. zooms which will attract dust and sand like a magnet).



Dust sealing is more than enough for me too. And I wouldn't also be afraid if I would be caught out even for a while under a slight drizzle.*according to the reviews, that is*


----------

