lens question

[leman]

so i think im just gonna buy the body of the t3 and buy these 2 lens. would that be a wise decision over buying the kit that comes with a EF-S 18-55mm lens?

Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens
and
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens

 

[ywen]

You'll want the 18-55 lens, or something else wide.

 

[MatthewThompson]

See if you can find a version 1 of the 50/1.8. The II has a plastic mount and is flimsy by comparison.

Ditch the tele lens. It's long, but slow and the quality is really poor unless it's stopped way down (IE, tripod use only). I'm a prime shooter (and a pro, FWIW), so I'd skip the kit lens entirely for a used set of primes (28-50-85 to start, 135 later if you need it). Primes are lighter, smaller and produce L-zoom quality without the pricetag.

I spent a lot of years yearning for the next best thing in lenses, when what counts is the image and your application. I got to looking past the red stripe and focused on quality for what *I* was shooting, and fast primes are it. If you're looking for a walk-around kit, a 28-50-85 will to 90% of what you'll be shooting without doubling up on focal lengths like the 18-55/50 will. For things like birding, sports and other telephoto applications, the low-end zoom just won't cut it as a portable solution.

Check KEH for used pricing (they offer a warranty). Buying new equipment makes way less sense if you're not able to write it off as a business expense.

 

[leman]

See if you can find a version 1 of the 50/1.8. The II has a plastic mount and is flimsy by comparison.

Ditch the tele lens. It's long, but slow and the quality is really poor unless it's stopped way down (IE, tripod use only). I'm a prime shooter (and a pro, FWIW), so I'd skip the kit lens entirely for a used set of primes (28-50-85 to start, 135 later if you need it). Primes are lighter, smaller and produce L-zoom quality without the pricetag.

I spent a lot of years yearning for the next best thing in lenses, when what counts is the image and your application. I got to looking past the red stripe and focused on quality for what *I* was shooting, and fast primes are it. If you're looking for a walk-around kit, a 28-50-85 will to 90% of what you'll be shooting without doubling up on focal lengths like the 18-55/50 will. For things like birding, sports and other telephoto applications, the low-end zoom just won't cut it as a portable solution.

Check KEH for used pricing (they offer a warranty). Buying new equipment makes way less sense if you're not able to write it off as a business expense.

thanks for your reply. and now that ive figured out keh im finding alot of great deals on there. i just wish i could find a T3 or T1i body on there for for under $500

 

[MatthewThompson]

Don't put as much stock in a body as you do in a good, versatile set of lenses.

Anything put out in the last 5 years is going to reward you with images that sing as long as you know what you're doing. Likewise, if you're just going to leave it on Auto, there's no point in having the latest and greatest. The megapixel war is silly, you should be looking for the biggest sensor (not necessarily the largest number of photosites) you can find within your budget. I shoot for a living with a 5D that came out in 2005.

What's your competency level when it comes to knowing what controls how an image looks?

 

[leman]

Don't put as much stock in a body as you do in a good, versatile set of lenses.

Anything put out in the last 5 years is going to reward you with images that sing as long as you know what you're doing. Likewise, if you're just going to leave it on Auto, there's no point in having the latest and greatest. The megapixel war is silly, you should be looking for the biggest sensor (not necessarily the largest number of photosites) you can find within your budget. I shoot for a living with a 5D that came out in 2005.

What's your competency level when it comes to knowing what controls how an image looks?

i know the basics and understand about the concepts of lighting as far as f-stops vs shutter speed and depth of field. but there is only so much you can learn by reading and using a point and shoot instead of having something in front of you to practice on. im much more of a hands on learner and learn through trial and error than anything else.

 

[MatthewThompson]

I'd go for a completely used kit in your situation. Use it for a year and you'll know at that point what features and lenses you'd want to add or take away from there. In short, with a used body and a set of good used primes, you'd make yourself a more informed consumer if you wanted more or different equipment later. Look for a used 40- or 50D, you get the midrange magnesium body, limited weathersealing and a better made product overall than the rebel series cameras.

 

[leman]

I'd go for a completely used kit in your situation. Use it for a year and you'll know at that point what features and lenses you'd want to add or take away from there. In short, with a used body and a set of good used primes, you'd make yourself a more informed consumer if you wanted more or different equipment later. Look for a used 40- or 50D, you get the midrange magnesium body, limited weathersealing and a better made product overall than the rebel series cameras.

yea im definately going to buy used no matter what. just doesnt make since for me to buy new. i just found a T1i used with kit lens for $500 so i think im gonna spring on that for now. and if/when im ready to upgrade i figure it will be a easy camera to turn around without losing too much money off it. thanks for your help.

 

[MatthewThompson]

No worries. Drop me an email anytime you come up with a question that's bugging you. Happy to help.

 

[Herbie]

Agreed on the notion of dropping your coin on one or two good lenses before blowing the wad on the latest frame.

We like the Tamron 18mm-270mm for a good walkaround lense. Makes composition easy, and on our DX format camera it makes for a hell of the zoom.

Paired that with a 35mm/f1.8 prime and we have a hard time taking bad shots!

 

[smslavin]

Don't put as much stock in a body as you do in a good, versatile set of lenses.

Total agreement. The body is just a light proof box.

Personally, I'd spend a little extra and go for the 50/1.4 over the 1.8. Build quality is a bit better and shooting it wide open yields fantastic results. It was one of my favorite lenses, and always mounted on one of my cameras, until I moved on to the 1.2. That lens, I will never part with.

 

[john101477]

it really depends on your photography. I agree for the most part on the body with the exception that the body is what records the data so in some instances a cheap body is just that, Cheap! In the world of camera bodies to cheap will destroy you. Buy more than you need but never more than you can afford after all the best camera is the one you have with you. (and dont ask who said that first cause I have no dang clue)
While prime lenses are nice, I have a cpl and only use them once in a blue moon. My 50mm has been out 1 time this year. I would personally be screwed with out at least an 18mm (which your kit lens will do). I dont know about you but I like to take pictures of wildlife when I get the chance. oddly a tele is the best way to do this, so dont under rate the usefulness of that 70-300 (only the 2nd most sold lens in the WORLD, and yes I can back this up for both Nikon and Canon). Might not be the fastest but is has the reach in decent light. Now low light is a whole other obstacle. I shoot a 70-200 2.8 and while I often dream of more reach, say, when I am shooting a grizzly in the Tetons. It is a great lens for much of what you will see along a trip. not as nice as a 600mm but also not as heavy or expensive.

 

[ywen]

Don't forget to consider the m4/3 format.. if you want ultimate telephoto, the m4/3 is the BEST format to get... 2x crop, a 100-300mm lens becomes an 200-600mm in the 35mm world.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/on_safari.shtml

Check out all the GH2 pics from that article...

 

[john101477]

Ummm no m4/3 is not going to give you the image quaility. I had actually considered the Sony NEX5 because of the APS-C sensor but decided I had to much invested into Nikon right now.

WIKI
Disadvantages of Micro Four Thirds compared to DSLRs
The sensor is 40% smaller in area (2.0 crop factor) than APS-C (1.6 crop factor) sized sensors and 75% smaller (ie a quarter of the area) than a Full Frame sensor (1.0 crop factor) (35mm equivalent) which can lead to lower image quality than an APS-C and much more than Full Frame based DSLR cameras with a similar pixel count; typically this is seen as increased levels of ISO noise in darker situations
Contrast detect autofocus were slower (albeit more accurate) than the phase detect systems used in advanced DSLRs. This gap was narrowed with the introduction of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2, and G3, and now Olympus's announced (but not yet shipping) cameras claim to have faster focus than any DSLR equipped with bundled lenses. Fast moving objects moving towards or away from the camera (ie for sports photography) with a top lens should see a Sports DSLR is less certain, especially in low light with expensive sports lenses.
Due to the absence of a mirror and prism mechanism, there is no ability to use a through-the-lens optical viewfinder. A through-the-lens electronic viewfinder (available on all but the first Olympus Pen E-P1 model ), a separate optical viewfinder (similar to a rangefinder or TLR), or the universally supplied LCD screen can be used instead;
Changing lenses can expose the sensor to more dust (a problem with all 'mirrorless' interchangeable lens digital camera designs), compared to DSLRs which have both a mirror and a closed shutter protecting the sensor. All current Micro Four Thirds cameras add highly efficient dust removal systems.
Larger crop factor (2x multiplier versus APS-C's 1.6x) means greater depth-of-field for the same equivalent field of view and f/stop on full frame cameras. This is a slight disadvantage in achieving out-of-focus backgrounds compared to APS-C but significant compared to Full Frame (1.0x multiplier).

 

[ywen]

HA a wiki copy/paste, one can hardly argue with that!

Yes m4/3 doesn't provide same level of sensor performance as camera with a larger sensor. Is the quality from a m4/3 sufficient for you? That's a subjective question depending on the shooter.

Properties that are true of the m4/3 format is that for wide angle lens, corner performance is typically much greater than lenses for the larger formats. It is also much easier to achieve long telephoto with the m4/3 format due to the 2x crop factor.

I own Canon FF and m4/3 and I use the two formats in different ways. However, I can definitely see the m4/3 format providing sufficient quality for many shooters.

Seeing this guy's work with a m4/3, I regard the format with enough IQ potential to satisfy my needs.. perhaps not everyone's though. And remember, shallow DOF is not the holy grail in photography.

http://starvingphotographer.com/blog/tag/panasonic-45-200-f4-5-5-6/