Donate your time to help a newbie?

[Taylormatic]

alright so i don't yet own a DSLR but i hope to sometime in the near future;
in the meantime, i'm doing some serious homework.
i'm wondering if my choice in a canon will be a worthwhile one?
and i'm also considering a lens upgrade and would really like some advice,
please and thank you!

[Jac050]

You can't go wrong with the Rebel SLRs as a first DSLR. It's incredibly user friendly and reliable.

[BlueRob]

All depends on the budget...there are good Canons and Kick @ss Canons also that applies to lenses and other brands.

[Taylormatic]

thank you for the replies!
i've heard the rebel was user friendly and that alone is what really made me lean more towards this particular camera
as for the budget, well it wouldnt really be my budget because i'm asking for it as a birthday present
but its on sale right now and i work at an electronic store so i would get a discount.

another question if you don't mind,
will the kit lens be a good all around lens to start with? or should i go ahead and buy another right off the bat?
thanks again

[Anbesol]

no, the kit lens is not a good all around lens, its a terrible one. The aperture range is extremely limiting, low light and narrow dof are commonly used photography techniques that are practically impossible with that lens. The focal range is a good general purpose, but thats it.

Tamron makes a 17-50 f/2.8, which is 1-2 stops faster throughout the range than the kit lens, a significant difference, much more flexible - and it has the same good range as the kit lens.

Or, for even more f-stop flexibility, get a pair of fixed lens, like a 24mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.8.

[Taylormatic]

thank you for your input Anbesol
would you recommend just buying the camera body and then picking out lenses?
or just sticking with the body and lens at first?

i plan on taking mostly action shots so i know aperture is fairly important,
i was thinking about a 100mm f/2.8
but i also want to take some macro shots of our saltwater tank as well
what lens would you recommend that can perform both of these purposes without compromising too much quality (if any lol)

thanks so much!

[Frog]

I'm not a Canon user but did a quick search. How about this one? Seems a reasonable price and you've got the range, speed, and macro all covered.
I have a Tamron 90mm macro f/2.8 but have never used it for sports.
I bet there are several out there. Remember, just because it can shoot macro, doesn't mean you have to.

[Anbesol]

If youre working with a tight budget, ditch the kit lens for sure. Its another $100 that can be used towards much more useful things, flash accessories, better lens, tripod, case, spare battery, etc etc. On the other hand, its a dirt cheap lens that you can use a bit more recklessly, or as backup, etc. My main reccomendation is that, if you DO get the kit lens, be sure its not the only lens you get. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is an excellent alternative to the kit lens and a very killer price too @ only ~$400.

There are plenty of other options though, try not to be swayed by those superzooms that promise versatility, they make a huge sacrifice to optical quality to put that huge range in.

The macro lens makes for a poor sports lens because sports lens require very fast AF, and Macro lens have huge focus range which inhibits AF speed. Most macros are ~ 50-110mm too, which is way wide for most sports.

A lens ability to macro is measured in a ratio, the relative size of the actual object to the size on the sensor. 1:1 Is a true macro ratio, but there are several lens that offer 1:3 or 1:4 which is also very close and close to macro. That kind of lens would be much more multipurpose and much better for action photos. Tamrons 70-200 f/2.8 has a 1:3 magnification, and has super fast AF, would be much faster AF then the 100mm you mentioned, but not quite as macro.

Also - the mag is 1:3 at 200mm, as opposed to the 1:1 at 100mm. You'll need to zoom all the way in to use the tamron at 1:3, which is true of any magnification ratio on a zoom lens.

What are you wanting to do with your saltwater tank? Maybe 1:3 would be adequate, as 1:1 you see lots of things the human eye cant.

I included a sample of a shot taken at ~1:6 as reference, and a 100% crop.

[Taylormatic]

thanks everyone for the replies again this is SO helpful
whoa that is one very close up shot Anbesol! lol
i would really like to get some fairly close up shots of things like the anenomes and corals, mostly to capture their amazing color and movement.

as for the kit lens, i've heard some very bad reviews and some fairly good ones
so i really considered using it to get accustomed to the camera and the settings until i saved up enough to get a lens for myself
since i'm almost positive that the camera plus a new lens is completely out of my mom's budget:[
how much would you say that Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 would cost me?
that sounds like a pretty good all around lens for what i need!

[Anbesol]

Well, you can get a good starter lens for ~$300-$400 like Tamrons 17-50 f/2.8, . The kit lens takes up $100 in a budget anyway. I'd suggest just to get a better lens and a lesser camera, than the other way around. If a better lens isn't in the budget, chop the budget allotted to the camera to make up the difference. What budget are you set with?

Getting used gear is often a way to get great performance on a budget. KEH.com sells used gear and is very clear and thorough in their condition descriptions, you could reasonably get a solid performing, fast aperture starter lens on there for less money. I use them and they are a commonly used retail for many pro's, almost as synonymous with online photo gear as B&H Photo.

I would way rather have a Rebel XT and an 17-50 f/2.8, then a Rebel XSi and the kit 18-55, and the XT could save you $2-300 on camera body over XSi.

The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is ~$750. You don't have to spend that much to get a similar lens. I own the 70-200 f/4 minolta for that purpose (what shot the dragonfly), and you can find those for only ~ $250 (really its a steal at that price too).

The best cost to optical quality you can get out there is the nifty fifty, Canons is the 50mm f/1.8, its ~$100, and will optically match most lens under $1k, and do many things most other lens cant. Its an excellent portrait lens. If the budget is super tight, I would at least get the kit with that. The 50 is what I started on, and to this day is one of my favorite most useful lens'. (its also very small, which is nice, as big lens get obnoxious to lug around). The 50's also have super zippy fast AF.

[Taylormatic]

the 50mm sounds good to start with. especially with that price!!
i'll definately check out KEH.com!
my mom is having a hard time even spending the money for the kit.so thats pretty much her budget! lol
i might be able to save a 4-5 hundred more for another lens after a couple months
and while i'd hardly consider myself a professional or even wanting to become a professional,
i still really want good quality

thank you all so much for the comments!
i feel more confident now

[Photo-John]

no, the kit lens is not a good all around lens, its a terrible one.

I totally disagree. Sure, there are better lenses to be had. And if you've got the money, then definitely, invest in a better lens. But if not, the kit lens is a fine way to get started. You can upgrade later when you have more money and a better idea what you need. Plus, the most important skills a photographer needs to learn - seeing and compostion - can be learned and practiced just fine with the kit lens.

[Anbesol]

I didn't say its a terrible lens, I said its a terrible all around lens.

I still personally would prefer a 50mm lens if I only got to pick one (between the 2), as cuckoo as that may sound.

[Photo-John]

I didn't say its a terrible lens, I said its a terrible all around lens.

I still personally would prefer a 50mm lens if I only got to pick one (between the 2), as cuckoo as that may sound.

Overall I think you're giving great advice. But the way that post read, I was afraid you might give the impression that the kit lens would mean the photographer wouldn't be able to get good use out of the camera. And that's not at all the case. Personally, if I only had one lens, I'd prefer the kit lens - especially the current, image-stabilized version. A 50mm lens is nice. But for me, it's not that flexible.