d5100 vs. t3i

[noodile]

Originally Posted by allisonv7

Thanks everyone!

Noodile, are you happy with the 55-200?? I'm leaning toward the 300mm for the extra reach.

I like it i think it zooms in enough. but in general, i rarely use it, i usually use my 18-55. if you have the extra cash, invest in a 50mm 1.8f as well.

[knowledgeseeker]

Originally Posted by allisonv7

Thanks everyone!

Noodile, are you happy with the 55-200?? I'm leaning toward the 300mm for the extra reach.

I have no direct experience with either, but you can read detailed measurements and see owner comments at:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1359/cat/13 (55-300)
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1088/cat/13 (55-200)

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by allisonv7

Hey folks,

I've done some research on which camera I should get and I'm really at a fork in the road. ...

One thing to consider,... The next lens you buy will be the same brand as the camera body. And then the speedlight will also be that brand. Some day you will replace the body and becuase of the lenses and so on you will have to buy the same brand again.

Also look at the used markets to help make up your mind. For example if you really want a 80-200 f/2.8 zoom both Canon and Nikon make one. It costs more than either body you are looking at. You can buy a used Nikon 80-200 for $1,000 less then the price of Canon's new lens. Ok maybe you don't want that lens and you like the f/4 verion of it. Only Canon has that.

My point is to think ahead about the system you would like to have in five years. Which SLR body you buy is far less importance than your think. Optics matters more than you think so plan out what yu'd buy then buy the brand of SLR body that lens the next three lens you want.

----------

Originally Posted by allisonv7

Thanks everyone!

Noodile, are you happy with the 55-200?? I'm leaning toward the 300mm for the extra reach.

I bet even 200mm is rarely used. Most of those cheap zooms spend their life in a case. OK, now and then a use for a long telephoto might come up but if you have extra cash a fast prime is a good second lens. Anything f/1.8 or faster. You will get good low light performance and the ability to isolate a subject with shallow DOF.

[knowledgeseeker]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

Also look at the used markets to help make up your mind. For example if you really want a 80-200 f/2.8 zoom both Canon and Nikon make one. It costs more than either body you are looking at. You can buy a used Nikon 80-200 for $1,000 less then the price of Canon's new lens. Ok maybe you don't want that lens and you like the f/4 verion of it. Only Canon has that.

I bet even 200mm is rarely used. Most of those cheap zooms spend their life in a case. OK, now and then a use for a long telephoto might come up but if you have extra cash a fast prime is a good second lens. Anything f/1.8 or faster. You will get good low light performance and the ability to isolate a subject with shallow DOF.

Nikon has a new 70-200 f/4 -- it is a companion to the new D600 full-frame prosumer camera. See:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1570/cat/13

I computed a histogram of the focal lengths I use. On my 18-200 I use mostly 18, then 200, then the in-betweens. On my 70-300 it is mostly 300, then some 70, then the in-betweens (roughly speaking). For outdoor sports and wildlife, 300 is (in my experience) quite useful. I do enjoy my 35mm f/1.8, but if one owns the stabilized kit lens it is not essential; the high-ISO performance of today's cameras allows one to shoot at (e.g.) f/5.6 indoors.

The OP wants a general-purpose setup, and inevitably will have to make educated guesses as to priorities. I might say, start with the 18-55 and then add, based on perceived needs --- but the 55-xxx lenses are usually heavily discounted when purchased in the original bundle with the camera.