need help to decide which equipment to buy

S

Stefanie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
22
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

I´m just researching about cameras and lenses, as I´m about to buy my first dslr camera. Long time ago I had a slr camera, but haven´t used it in 10 years, the last few years I used my Canon SX40 HS to take pictures, but lately I´m not happy with the picture quality anymore. I want to take sharper, better quality pictures.

I´m interested in taking portraits of babys, children, take pictures at parties/indoors or parks. I also like taking pictures of animals, like in zoos or on safari and landscape on holidays, but sometimes also close ups of bugs, but that is rare. I mainly would use it for taking nice sharp pictures of my children, then some animals and landscape every now and then.


I decided to buy the Canon EOS 60d, unless anyone has really good reasons for me to buy a different one.
But I´m really not sure about lenses, at all and need some help deciding.
I don´t intend to get the lens kit with the camera, but I´m thinking of getting a prime lens, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Or would this Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 be a better alternative to a prime lens?
And as for the zoom I can´t decide between Canon 70-200mm f/4L and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens. It´s just such a big price gap. Is the more expensive one really that much better?
In the long run I also would like to get a wide angle, which I can´t afford at the moment and maybe a macro lens. I´d take the Tamron 10-24mm and maybe Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.
What else would I need, when researching those things I saw lens hoods, do I need that? What is it for? And what about filters? Which one is good?

I´m looking forward to your opinions.
 
I'd get a canon 17-55mm f/2.8 as my first lens. It's the best general purpose walkaround lens you can get (for a crop camera).
 
If you are working on a budget, why not look at the 50mm 1.8? I've got the 1.4 and it rarely ever gets used. The difference between the two is not that great, and lots of people have got really great photo's with the 1.8.

The 60d is a great camera, and has a flippy out screen which is useful if you want to do photo's of bugs or shoot at funny angles. However if you are not going to use this a lot, and you don't want the video (which personally I would want), you could get a 5d mk 1 for the same or less money. Whilst it's an older camera, there was a thread on here showing just how good it really is. Indoors with low lighting you would probably get a better shot with a full frame camera, as generally they handle higher iso's a bit better.

I've not had any of the other lenses you are talking about. However the 70-200 f4 sometimes sells for less than £400 on here. I can't comment on the ef-s lens, however if you do chose to get it, realise that if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame camera you will have to get rid of it. Also the Canon L lenses seem to hold their money, and you are unlikely to lose much or anything if you get a decent secondhand one and look after it.

Lens hoods are good for two things. Protecting the front element of your lens, and for stopping flare, which is when light gets into the lens which you do not want. They also look quite cool in my opinion. They are worth having though. The 70-200 L lens will come with one for free. However the other lenses won't. My advice would be to buy a 3 quid copy of ebay or amazon rather than spending 30 quid for the Canon one, as ultimately they are just bits of plastic.

Filters seem to cause some debate on here. Lot's of very experienced and good photographers say don't use them just to protect the lens. As whilst they will stop scratching and damage, they will reduce image quality. However Canon say you should use them on their more expensive lenses to complete the weathesealing... So it's really a personal decision to make. UV filters are not needed on dslr's according to most people as they do nothing for your photos. As you progress you might want to get into filters for landscape stuff, and if you have some time look up a guy called Mark Mullan on here who explains it better than I will even attempt to do.

If you are going to get a filter for protection I like Hoya ones, however there are other better/more expensive/cheaper ones available. You can pick them up on the classifieds on here, and amazon are worth looking at. Their prices are already pretty reasonable, however if you look for their warehouse offers you might pick up a filter even cheaper. I think I payed about £18 for a filter which high street stores are charging £80 for.

Anyway I've said too much now. I'm sure more experienced members will give you some better suggestions.
 
fatmarley said:
I'd get a canon 17-55mm f/2.8 as my first lens. It's the best general purpose walkaround lens you can get (for a crop camera).
Click to expand...

So do you mean just getting that lens and no other? As this one is more expensive than the camera itself and wouldn´t allow me to buy any other anyway.
 
supersammy said:
If you are working on a budget, why not look at the 50mm 1.8? I've got the 1.4 and it rarely ever gets used. The difference between the two is not that great, and lots of people have got really great photo's with the 1.8.

The 60d is a great camera, and has a flippy out screen which is useful if you want to do photo's of bugs or shoot at funny angles. However if you are not going to use this a lot, and you don't want the video (which personally I would want), you could get a 5d mk 1 for the same or less money. Whilst it's an older camera, there was a thread on here showing just how good it really is. Indoors with low lighting you would probably get a better shot with a full frame camera, as generally they handle higher iso's a bit better.

I've not had any of the other lenses you are talking about. However the 70-200 f4 sometimes sells for less than £400 on here. I can't comment on the ef-s lens, however if you do chose to get it, realise that if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame camera you will have to get rid of it. Also the Canon L lenses seem to hold their money, and you are unlikely to lose much or anything if you get a decent secondhand one and look after it.

Lens hoods are good for two things. Protecting the front element of your lens, and for stopping flare, which is when light gets into the lens which you do not want. They also look quite cool in my opinion. They are worth having though. The 70-200 L lens will come with one for free. However the other lenses won't. My advice would be to buy a 3 quid copy of ebay or amazon rather than spending 30 quid for the Canon one, as ultimately they are just bits of plastic.

Filters seem to cause some debate on here. Lot's of very experienced and good photographers say don't use them just to protect the lens. As whilst they will stop scratching and damage, they will reduce image quality. However Canon say you should use them on their more expensive lenses to complete the weathesealing... So it's really a personal decision to make. UV filters are not needed on dslr's according to most people as they do nothing for your photos. As you progress you might want to get into filters for landscape stuff, and if you have some time look up a guy called Mark Mullan on here who explains it better than I will even attempt to do.

If you are going to get a filter for protection I like Hoya ones, however there are other better/more expensive/cheaper ones available. You can pick them up on the classifieds on here, and amazon are worth looking at. Their prices are already pretty reasonable, however if you look for their warehouse offers you might pick up a filter even cheaper. I think I payed about £18 for a filter which high street stores are charging £80 for.

Anyway I've said too much now. I'm sure more experienced members will give you some better suggestions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, yes I should probably consider the 50mm 1.8 then.

As for the floppy sceen, my current camera has it and I do use it. Also would be nice to have a video function, as not to carry a seperate video camera around together with the big camera on holiday, but will have a think and research about the 5d Mark i camera, thanks for the tip.

So a lens hood is good for any lens. Good to know.

If I get an expensive lens, I probably rather protect it then, as well with a filter.
 
Something to consider is the size of the lenses.

The 70-200 is miles better than the 55-250, However it is also MUCH bigger and heavier.

Same with the 50mm 1.8 vs the 1.4.

I would buy the 1.4 for the faster focus however the 1.8 is tiny and weighs **** all and can easily be thrown in your camera bag without really taking up any room.

Weigh up what you want there's no point having quality lenses if you leave them at home because you don't want to lug lots of gear around.

Recently I broke my 35mm f2 lens, the repair bill was £180 it cost me £209 brand new and has since been discontinued. I loved the lens and considered upgrading to the IS USM version ~£500 or even the 1.4 L version at ~£1000 I could easily afford £500 and at a push the L series one (not trying to give it the biggun just pushing the point it wasn't the money that swayed my opinion). But decided to repair my lens instead because of the relative size.

D3S_9203-compared-3.jpg


If I wanted I could put it in my jeans pocket.

Carrying the 50 1.8 or the 35 2, isn't like carrying another lens, they aren't much bigger than 2-3 spare batteries.

Also personally on a crop sensor, I think the 35 f2 is a more useful length, than the 50, it's better built and has a much better focus system which for me is where the 50 really falls down. However Prices have gone up since it was discontinued (people not wanting to pay £500 for the cheapest canon 35mm prime.

As for Wide Angle I have the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 which I'm impressed with.
 
Stefanie said:
So do you mean just getting that lens and no other? As this one is more expensive than the camera itself and wouldn´t allow me to buy any other anyway.
Click to expand...

The Canon 50mm f1.4 was my only lens for a couple of years. Indoors is was good for portrait shots of a single person. But for two people I couldn't stand far enough back to get them both in. A 50mm prime lens will give you nice sharp pictures but you'll miss lots of nice photos because of the fixed focal length.

The Canon 17-55mm is expensive because it uses very good quality glass (for those sharp pictures you're looking for) and has excellent auto-focus speed and is image stablized. Because the 17-55mm is so versatile it would spend most of it's time on your camera, so it makes sense to spend the most money on this lens. I bought mine from Panamoz.
For the occasional zoo trip or whatever, i'd just buy the Canon EF-S 55-250mm. It's supposed to be very good for the money.

You could get the cheaper Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but I had a bad copy and it put me off. They now come with a 5 year guarantee so it may be worth trying one. I think the Canon is supposed to be better though.
 
Here's a picture of my mate taken with the Canon 17-55mm. Taken at 55mm.

John_zpsa1e2d7f4.jpg
 
is there much difference in quality between the 17-55 and the 17-40
 
There is a million miles difference between the 55-250mm and the 70-200 f4 :cool:

I've got a 60d and it's a cracking crop sensor camera. Af is pretty quick. It has a more sophisticated AF (compared to the older 5d) but the ISO isn't as good as it is on the full frame 5d. Also the 5d hasn't got video as you stated you might want so I'd plump for the 60d.

I've got the Canon nifty50 1.8 as a backup and the Canon F/1.4 USM. The focusing on the 1.4 is much quicker and makes no noise when focusing, unlike the 1.8 but then its around 3 times the price of the 1.8 (speed and noise is important to me at the front of a quiet church during a wedding but maybe not so much to you :) )

To be fair to the 1.8 it's an amazing little lens for the cost so as a first prime lens you can't go wrong with it :thumbs:

Have you seen the 40mm F/2.8 STM lens? They're cheap as chips and are properly small!!
 
Hello,

After all those comments I´m more confused than before lol

I also saw in one shop that the camera can come with different kits and was wonderinf if one of them is actually good to get?

Canon EOS 60D With 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Kit

Canon EOS 60D with EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Canon EOS 60D With EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Kit

Canon EOS 60D (18-55) (55-250)

On top of what ever I get here, I´d buy the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM or 1.8 depending on how much money I´ve got left.

Thanks again.
 
I know the Canon 15-85mm gets recommended a lot, so the "Canon EOS 60D With EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Kit" would be a safe bet.

Review here - LINK
 
Last edited:
Hi

Are there any meets going on in your area soon?

If so, go and attend (with or without a camera - shouldn't be a problem).

If you have the 60d and even a kit lens, just turn up... mainly because the meets I've been on have had a very high ratio of canon users, with a variety of lenses.

This gives you the size, weight feel and perhaps (if you ask nicely) useage of the lenses.

Any you like a lot, note down what they are.


If its not new kit, I'd get myself to a nearby used equipment store and see what they have to offer, prices etc...
if you haven't bought a camera yet, then get to a camera store - used or not - and handle as many bodies as you can.
 
I think that either a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 would be a good start. You'll get 99% of the peformance you'd get from the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the bulk and weight too.

I don't know if I'd go for the 50mm f1.8. Although it's cheap there are so many stories of poor quality, poor reliability and soft images at wide apertures that I think I'd wait until I could buy something more expensive but much better in pretty much every way. And there's the 50mm focal length to consider as some would think it a bit long on your APS-C camera, I think you'd be better off with a 17-50mm f2.8 zoom and seeing if you'd prefer a 30mm f1.4 or a 50mm prime based on how you use the zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top