Beginner/Intermediate Canon Starter kit advice

boulderNardo

Hello everybody!
Just signed up after lurking for a while.
I'm in the market for a new starter kit, and could need some advice on lenses.
I have some previous photography experience, mostly film SLR's when I was younger, and last summer worked as an assistant to a wedding photographer in Florida. Very intersting experience - anyway, I can claim I know a little bit about photography, and absolutely want to get started again, get some equipment, and shoot shoot shoot ...

With a limited budget, I've decided to go with a Canon Rebel XTi. I was considering a 30D, but decided against it. I'm reasoning that I will probably upgrade my camera 1 - 2 years from now to something more professional (full-frame, possibly 5D or successor) and therefore would like to have a cheaper starter set for now. However, I would like to build up my lens stash with EF lenses only so that they can be used on a future full-frame DSLR.

The kind of photography I'm looking to do is widespread - I love outdoors and am constantly hiking, biking, or running in the mountains. I therefore want to buy lenses adequate for both sports photography and landscapes. I am also very interested in architecture, nature, and portraits - all interests that obviously require a wide array of different lenses.

Anyway, enough background. So far, I'm looking at these items:

o Canon Rebel XTi, Body Only (Adorama)
o Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro TeleZoom Lens (Adorama)
o Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark II (Adorama)

First off, any words about the Sigma lens are welcome. I know the Canon 50mm prime is a highly respected lens for its price, however, I'm not so sure about the Sigma TeleZoom lens.

Second, I'm now stuck picking an 'introductory' wide-angle (zoom or prime) lens that doesn't completely blow the budget and that still has good enough quality. My options so far:

o Canon Compact EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM
o Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
o Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Mark II

I'm personally leaning towards the 28mm prime from Canon - have only read good reviews so far and the price is right. However, I'm not sure whether waiting, say, a month or two, being able to spend an extra $200-$300 on a prime wide-angle would significantly improve my experience.

Anyhow ... sorry for the long post, hope you're not bored to death by now Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
bernardo

sirsloop

I was going to get into it about those 70-300 zoom's but I think I'll hold off for now. Thats probably the best you'll do without blowing your budget apart... I'd personally save up for a 70-200/4L but I can understand why beginner and L prices don't mix (although its only like 550 bucks)

As far as a prime, the nifty is a decent lens but I think you'll find it too long for every day walking around. The 28/2.8 is a nice and inexpensive lens, but with only 2.8 its kinda blah for a prime. In that price range I think you'll be much happier with the ef 35/2 which ends up being around a normal lens on a full frame body. Its a great little lens and I use mine all the time!! For a bit less than double you can check out the ef 28/1.8 or sigma 1.4... neither are too attractive if you ask me when the 35/2 is around at $225.

btw, I think you made a good choice sticking to the 400D. Its a great little body and will work fantastic for you! If you have big hands... GET A GRIP!

boulderNardo

Thanks. I'm looking into the 35/2 but I'm a little afraid it might not be wide enough for some panoramic shots in the mountains...

As for the 70-200 f/4L ... I have also been looking at that one. It would blow my budget now, but not in 4-6 weeks. The question is whether it is worth waiting that long for the L lens, its full capability I might not yet be able to harness as a beginner, or just go with the Sigma 70-300 for now to get started to learn, and eventually (2-3months from now) get the f/4L or even a 200 or 400 L prime. Just my thoughts.

Any input very welcome! Thanks a lot everybody, I know how patient you experts have to be to answer such specific beginner questions over and over again

z_28

Maybe this set will fit you ?
XTi or used 20D/30D with

Tamron 17-50/2.8
and
EF 70-200/4L (few weeks later

It may be perfect beginners choice (and not only beginners too)

jdryan3

sirsloop wrote:

As far as a prime, the nifty is a decent lens but I think you'll find it too long for every day walking around. The 28/2.8 is a nice and inexpensive lens, but with only 2.8 its kinda blah for a prime. In that price range I think you'll be much happier with the ef 35/2 which ends up being around a normal lens on a full frame body. Its a great little lens and I use mine all the time!! For a bit less than double you can check out the ef 28/1.8 or sigma 1.4... neither are too attractive if you ask me when the 35/2 is around at $225.

I agree that the 35/ f/2 is the better lens, especially on a crop body. It will also transition nicely to that 5D you are talking about. The 28 will be like a 45, which is more normal than wide. If you want wide (say 28 or below) you are going to have to get something in the 17mm range, or lower, for that body.

And I would wait the few weeks for the 70-200 f/4.

sirsloop

Wide on a 400D is like 10mm... ef 10-22 or sigma 10-20. Probably out of your price range for the time being.

boulderNardo

z_28 wrote:

Maybe this set will fit you ?
XTi or used 20D/30D with

Tamron 17-50/2.8
and
EF 70-200/4L (few weeks later

It may be perfect beginners choice (and not only beginners too)

It's an option - but the Tamron 17-50/2.8, as far as I understand it, is only for small/middle format cameras. At that price, I would prefer a lens that I can still use with a full-frame camera in a year when I plan on upgrading the body...

... or is this a wrong train of thoughts? Should I focus on getting a good beginner set NOW, and possibly have to sell some lenses in the future when I upgrade to full-frame?

As for the tele-zoom ... I can wait, and if the general consensus is to wait, I shall. I've used the 70-200 f/4L before, and loved it. How about the 200/2.8L Mk II ??? I would assume being a prime it's much sharper than the zoom-lens ... I can do without the shorter focal-length initially, slowly building up an arsenal of lenses that spread over the focal lengths.

Thanks so far everybody! Great input!

PS: even though I hike a lot, I don't mind extra weight on me. I would rather have quality with several primes over 'comfort' with one zoomlens.

sirsloop

The 70-200/4L is one hell of a sharp lens!! -at pretty much any setting you have it at too! The entire 70-200 L line is fantastic. They kick so much ass I own both the 70-200/4L and the 70-200/2.8L.

IMHO, if you are gonna spend 600 bucks on anything make it the 70-200/4L. It won't dissapoint!

z_28

boulderNardo wrote:

It's an option - but the Tamron 17-50/2.8, as far as I understand it, is only for small/middle format cameras. At that price, I would prefer a lens that I can still use with a full-frame camera in a year when I plan on upgrading the body...

... or is this a wrong train of thoughts? Should I focus on getting a good beginner set NOW, and possibly have to sell some lenses in the future when I upgrade to full-frame?

As for the tele-zoom ... I can wait, and if the general consensus is to wait, I shall. I've used the 70-200 f/4L before, and loved it. How about the 200/2.8L Mk II ??? I would assume being a prime it's much sharper than the zoom-lens ... I can do without the shorter focal-length initially, slowly building up an arsenal of lenses that spread over the focal lengths.

Thanks so far everybody! Great input!

PS: even though I hike a lot, I don't mind extra weight on me. I would rather have quality with several primes over 'comfort' with one zoomlens.

You can sell 17-50/2.8 at the time of XTi sale, no big deal.


If you want to buy 5D soon - you must start buying top quality lenses now.
Cheaper but full frame aren't an option, something for something !

Optical quality of 200/2.8L is about same as 70-200/4L or 2.8L
Anyway - if you got fund for few prime L lenses right now - why not start with 5D ?

boulderNardo

z_28 wrote:

You can sell 17-50/2.8 at the time of XTi sale, no big deal.

If you want to buy 5D soon - you must start buying top quality lenses now.
Cheaper but full frame aren't an option, something for something !

Optical quality of 200/2.8L is about same as 70-200/4L or 2.8L
Anyway - if you got fund for few prime L lenses right now - why not start with 5D ?

I don't quite have funds for ALL new prime L lenses I'd like right now... But I'm free from any major monthly financial obligation and I can dedicate a big percentage of my salary to photography over the next months. Even so, a 5D is outside my budget even for the next few months, unless I don't buy any lenses at all... That is why the 400D.

However, you're right ... If I want to upgrade soon, there's no point in getting cheap lenses now. Decision's made then. I will go with the 400D + the 70-200/4L now. And a few more weeks down the road I'll get myself a wide-angle/normal lens (either zoom or prime).

As for those lenses ... I gather the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a very good lens? How is the sharpness at 50 compared to a CAnon 50/1.4 USM say?

Thanks a lot everybody again! All your input is being immensely helpful in making my decisions.
bernardo

claudermilk

Good advice so far, and you have obviously done your homework starting right with a less expensive body to allow more budget for better glass.

So, I will add my voice to the chorus here. Since you're trying to do it right, don't bother with the consumer glass, wait a bit and get the 70-200. That line has a well-deserved stellar reputation. The only version I have not personally used is the 70-200/4L IS; the rest have all been fanatastic lenses. So good that my current 70-200/2.8L is pretty darn close to the magic 300/2.8L IS I've used. The f4 version of the lens is a bargain considering how good it is.

For portraits & wider stuff, primes is probably a good way to go since the optical quality is there, they are all FF-based, and they are cheaper.

If you can afford another $100 on the body, you can get used 20Ds at KEH for about $750 where the XTi is $650 at Adorama. You might even be able to do better in the Flea Market or the B&S forum at FM.

It's taken me three years to get my main basic kit together, but it's all top quality glass that will last me for years. I also have not had to churn gear in the used market and have had loaners & rentals available to fill gaps in the meantime. Now I get to start looking at specialty/oddball lenses for fun.

Chrissiebeez_NL

while i cant disagree about buying good lenses if you want to go full frame, i just bought the canon 28-105 F3.5-4-5 and for the money, its a nice lens! i want to pair it with a 10-20 because i dont zoom as much and in time replace it with a 24-105 but for now it suits me well. Whatever you do, buy the 50mm. its awsome for its price, you can always sell it with almost no loss and it really opens your eyes to what a small aperature does for you!!

boulderNardo

Yes, great advice so far, thank you very much everybody.
I've made my mind up and will definitely go with

o Canon 400D (possibly used if I can find it at significantly lower price)
o Canon 70-200 f/4L
o Canon 50/1.8 MkII

That's within my starter budget, and in a month down the road I'll be getting myself another lens to complement those (possibly the Tamron mentioned before in the thread).

Bernardo

claudermilk

boulderNardo wrote:

Yes, great advice so far, thank you very much everybody.
I've made my mind up and will definitely go with

o Canon 400D (possibly used if I can find it at significantly lower price)
o Canon 70-200 f/4L
o Canon 50/1.8 MkII

That's within my starter budget, and in a month down the road I'll be getting myself another lens to complement those (possibly the Tamron mentioned before in the thread).

Bernardo

FYI, I saw a couple of 20Ds for sale at FM for very good prices ($600) range yesterday.

boulderNardo

Thanks!
You would recommend a used 20D over a 400D?

z_28

I had two three 10D, 20D, have now 30D and XTi too -
buy good condition used 20D

boulderNardo

It's DONE!
I bought a slightly used 20D over at FM for $675 including 2 extra battery packs, with less than 1000 exposures. I think that's an ok deal...

... next comes the 70-200/4L lens, OR, if the price is right, a coworker of mine is going to sell me the 70-200/2.8L

... 2 weeks from today I'll get myself the canon 35/2 to use as a normal prime

... another 2 - 4 weeks down, the Tamron 17-50, a Canon wide prime, or a Canon wide zoom L.

thanks everybody for the great advice again.
I'll be sure to come back for more when the time comes for more lenses
bernardo

claudermilk

Sounds like a good deal to me. Keep watching B&S over there, those 70-200's show up al lthe time. I can vouch that the 70-200/2.8L is a gem, mine is amazing even after becoming accustomed to the IS version with many rentals & loaners.

boulderNardo

claudermilk wrote:

Sounds like a good deal to me. Keep watching B&S over there, those 70-200's show up al lthe time. I can vouch that the 70-200/2.8L is a gem, mine is amazing even after becoming accustomed to the IS version with many rentals & loaners.

Sorry to bump this up one last time ...
How much should I offer my coworker for the 70-200 2.8L ?
He bought it new from B&H in 2001, it's in PERFECT condition, comes with box, proof of purchase, lens bag, tripod collar.

I've seen this one used for ~$900, but most were newer. Don't know if being from 2001 makes any major difference in price.

Thanks,
bernardo

claudermilk

From what I've seen these usually go for around $900-$950. The age doesn't usually make a big difference in price & a 2001 lens is only 6 years old. The only Canon lenses I know if where age is an issue is something like the 200/1.8 and that's because it's been out of production for so long parts are very hard to come by (AFAIK Canon doesn't want to touch them anymore). I have an old 50/1.8 Mk I that works perfectly and I would expect to be able to get the $140 I spent on it back out of it.

sirsloop

boulderNardo wrote:

It's DONE!
... 2 weeks from today I'll get myself the canon 35/2 to use as a normal prime

thats what I like to see!! Definitely been doing your homework

boulderNardo

sirsloop wrote:

thats what I like to see!! Definitely been doing your homework

lol
It's done AGAIN ... bought the 35/2 lens, used on FM for $190, thought that was a good deal, don't find many of those used usually.