Great DSLR+2 Lenses setup at bargin price-thoughts?

[richskl]

Hi,

Having dabbled around with P&S and bridge cameras for 5 years I've finally decided to step up to a DSLR. After a huge amount of reading reviews etc. I've put together the following package (all second hand refurbished grade excellent++ stock):

Canon 20D
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM

The above I got for about $1400 total from a reputable refurb dealer with 6 mo warranty. When I save up some more cash I may get a wide angle lens for the low end. Is the above package good quality for the price?? I will be doing mainly amateur travel/wildlife photography (not birds).

thanks.

 

[ProwlingTiger]

Yeah, you got a good deal, I'd say. The 20D is a good camera too. And the Canon lenses is a good addition, though I personally have a Tamron model, same specs.

 

[jampat]

Personally, I'd save up for a bit an pick up a 70-200. The extra stop (or two) can be very helpful when shooting wildlife. It keeps your shutter speed up and helps to isolate your subject from the background. I think you are on the right track with the 24-70 and 20d though. Have fun.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Hi,

Having dabbled around with P&S and bridge cameras for 5 years I've finally decided to step up to a DSLR. After a huge amount of reading reviews etc. I've put together the following package (all second hand refurbished grade excellent++ stock):

Canon 20D
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM

The above I got for about $1400 total from a reputable refurb dealer with 6 mo warranty. When I save up some more cash I may get a wide angle lens for the low end. Is the above package good quality for the price?? I will be doing mainly amateur travel/wildlife photography (not birds).

thanks.

Not a great deal in my opinion. 20d is $400 refurb/used, Sigma 24-70 is $200, Canon 70-300 is is $400. That's $1000, $1400 is too much.

Here's what I'd do.
Canon 30d - used/refurb $550
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $350
Canon 70-200 f/4 L $450

= $1350

You could also swap the 70-200 for your 70-300 IS for extra reach, but the L is a better lens.

 

[richskl]

btw. forget to mention that i'm in the UK. taylorwilsdon: those two lenses were actually my alternate list. Only problem is they don't cover the 50-70 mm range and don't give as much reach. Also the canon 30D and L lens cannot be had for those prices over here. The 30D is going for ~$650 on ebay right now. I guess the refurb market in the US is larger hence lower prices?

 

[CrackedButter]

So you're from the UK like me, why not go to http://www.mifsuds.com and have a look at their refurb gear. They have a 30D for £350 and you can get the 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 for £149 and the 75-300mm f4/5.6 for £69 bringing you into a grand total of: £569

Much cheaper with cash to spare and other lenses on offer to you still.

 

[ChrisA]

Hi,

Having dabbled around with P&S and bridge cameras for 5 years I've finally decided to step up to a DSLR. After a huge amount of reading reviews etc. I've put together the following package (all second hand refurbished grade excellent++ stock):

Canon 20D
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM

The above I got for about $1400 total from a reputable refurb dealer with 6 mo warranty. When I save up some more cash I may get a wide angle lens for the low end. Is the above package good quality for the price?? I will be doing mainly amateur travel/wildlife photography (not birds).

thanks.

That 300mm f/5.6 lens is not going to work as well as you think. I would MUCH rather have a 200 f/2.8 f/5.6 is just to slow

Also 24-70 is really not wide enough. Pick up a used 18-55 "kit" lens. the 18-50 range is what you will use most of the time, 24. is not wide at all on that camera.

You are going to need a good tripod if you really want that 300 f/5.6 lens.

Why is it that almost every beginning SLR user things he wants an ultra-long f/5.6 lens?

 

[Kebabselector]

The 75-300mm f4/5.6 for £69

That 75-300 is probably one of the worst lenses Canon have ever made.

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is a decent bit of glass. It's not an L series, but still decent.

 

[CrackedButter]

That 75-300 is probably one of the worst lenses Canon have ever made.

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is a decent bit of glass. It's not an L series, but still decent.

It probably is but it looks similar to the one the thread starter was offered, if it is I've saved him some money anyway for getting it cheaper elsewhere!

 

[Kebabselector]

mmmm, not too sure if it is saving money as you'd probably want to get rid of it after using it for about 5 minutes

 

[miloblithe]

Not a great deal in my opinion. 20d is $400 refurb/used, Sigma 24-70 is $200, Canon 70-300 is is $400. That's $1000, $1400 is too much.

Here's what I'd do.
Canon 30d - used/refurb $550
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $350
Canon 70-200 f/4 L $450

= $1350

You could also swap the 70-200 for your 70-300 IS for extra reach, but the L is a better lens.

Where are you finding these prices, like a Sigma 24-70 for $200?

 

[RainForRent]

Hi,

Having dabbled around with P&S and bridge cameras for 5 years I've finally decided to step up to a DSLR. After a huge amount of reading reviews etc. I've put together the following package (all second hand refurbished grade excellent++ stock):

Canon 20D
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM

The above I got for about $1400 total from a reputable refurb dealer with 6 mo warranty. When I save up some more cash I may get a wide angle lens for the low end. Is the above package good quality for the price?? I will be doing mainly amateur travel/wildlife photography (not birds).

thanks.

This sounds like a good deal, but like others have said, I would recommend (even if it isnt AS long) a faster telephoto. Enjoy it.

 

[richskl]

.

 

[richskl]

Thanks for all the feedback.

The advantage of the canon 70-300 is the IS. As I'm using it mainly for travel photography that's gonna let me do a lot of handheld shots. The 70-200 f4 L is also more expensive over here, and a 70-200 f2.8 is too heavy!

I thought it would be better to get a dedicated wide angle lens for the low end (<24mm) when I can next afford it.

 

[epicwelshman]

Thanks for all the feedback.

The advantage of the canon 70-300 is the IS. As I'm using it mainly for travel photography that's gonna let me do a lot of handheld shots. The 70-200 f4 L is also more expensive over here, and a 70-200 f2.8 is too heavy!

I thought it would be better to get a dedicated wide angle lens for the low end (<24mm) when I can next afford it.

Am I the only person who doesn't care about IS/VR/OS etc? I understand its use for low light telephoto shots without a tripod, but unless you're often doing that then is it really much use? I'm not trying to ignite an argument, but it really seems more of a marketing ploy than anything else. Take for example Nikon ad Canon's latest VR/IS kit lenses. Why would you need VR in the 18-55 range? It just seems useless.

 

[Cave Man]

Am I the only person who doesn't care about IS/VR/OS etc? I understand its use for low light telephoto shots without a tripod, but unless you're often doing that then is it really much use? I'm not trying to ignite an argument, but it really seems more of a marketing ploy than anything else. Take for example Nikon ad Canon's latest VR/IS kit lenses. Why would you need VR in the 18-55 range? It just seems useless.

Four stops.

There are times when it comes in really handy, for example, when shooting waterfalls.

 

[epicwelshman]

Four stops.

There are times when it comes in really handy, for example, when shooting waterfalls.

Do you mean to achieve a motion effect while keeping everything else sharp (ie like an ND filter but without a tripod)?

 

[AlaskaMoose]

IS is really handy when the camera is handheld and in a low-light situation. It may allow the camera to capture a moving subject that otherwise would look slightly blurred or out of focus. I don't have lenses with IS, and compensate by using a tripod. I would like to see Nikon and Canon going to VR and IS all the way. That's when I can buy non-IS Canon "L" lenses and save some cash in the process

 

[Cave Man]

Do you mean to achieve a motion effect while keeping everything else sharp (ie like an ND filter but without a tripod)?

Yes. It's easy to get 1/4" exposures and even 1/2" exposures if you're on a wide FL. Of course, tripods are better but sometimes they're not available.

 

[Roy Hobbs]

Not a great deal in my opinion. 20d is $400 refurb/used, Sigma 24-70 is $200, Canon 70-300 is is $400. That's $1000, $1400 is too much.

Here's what I'd do.
Canon 30d - used/refurb $550
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $350
Canon 70-200 f/4 L $450

= $1350

You could also swap the 70-200 for your 70-300 IS for extra reach, but the L is a better lens.

WHere do you find a Canon 70-200 f/4 L for $450??

 

[taylorwilsdon]

WHere do you find a Canon 70-200 f/4 L for $450??

I've had 2, bought one for $440 and the other for $450, so they're obviously available for that. Sold them for the same. Both were minty mint. Try fred miranda, potn for good deals. I saw one for $400 a little while ago in good shape.

 

[miloblithe]

I see the Sigma 24-70 on keh.com for $350 for one in excellent condition, $380 for EX+. The only 70-200 f/4 on Fredmiranda I saw was for $600--obviously that's probably not used. I think you're talking about prices that are hard to find, at best. Admittedly, I bought a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 with two filters for $200, but I got a steal. No way that's a price anyone can consistently find.