Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Wanting to join the DSLR world, Limited Budget, Need opinions

What's wrong with the kit IS 17-85 on the 40D? <(Seen in the "Avoid List"). I was considering this since I'm used to shooting with a 50 on my old Pentax.
Click to expand...
Cause all Canon attempt for the EF-S range has been futile, to me the only good EF-S zoom lenses are the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM and EF-S 10-22 f/3.5 - f/4.5 USM
 
AFABS said:
What's wrong with the kit IS 17-85 on the 40D? <(Seen in the "Avoid List"). I was considering this since I'm used to shooting with a 50 on my old Pentax.
Click to expand...

because you can get an f/2.8 zoom or Sigma 17-70 for that kind of money, all of which are better.

same deal (sort of) with the 18-200 - just get the Tamron 18-270.
 
If you don't like the Canon kit lens, you can always buy a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It doesn't have IS, but it carries f/2.8 all the way through, and it's very fast and sharp. I have this one, and love it.
 
Phrasikleia seems to be doing pretty well with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro!
Click to expand...
Lol, but that is a prime :D and macro are usually very sharp to begin with. Besides its a general rule that zoom are not as good as primes and only the expensive zooms are equivalent to primes (giving a general statement) ;)
 
wheelhot said:
Lol, but that is a prime :D and macro are usually very sharp to begin with. Besides its a general rule that zoom are not as good as primes and only the expensive zooms are equivalent to primes (giving a general statement) ;)
Click to expand...
Ah! I didn't even notice that you said zoom. :p My mistake.
 
So whats wrong the the Canon Kit lens???

I've been using the 18-50 IS that came with my 450D now for a while and feel more than happy with it!! Sure if i had endless $$$ i would buy some thing more expensive..but i really dont think theres anything so wrong with the kit lens that it should be on the list of lens to avoid!!



 
gangzoom said:
So whats wrong the the Canon Kit lens???

I've been using the 18-50 IS that came with my 450D now for a while and feel more than happy with it!! Sure if i had endless $$$ i would buy some thing more expensive..but i really dont think theres anything so wrong with the kit lens that it should be on the list of lens to avoid!!
Click to expand...

it's not. there are three versions, the first two sucked. note the "I" and "II" at the end, and that your version has "IS" at the end instead.
 
Lol, never expect people will start asking wats wrong and etc. Erm yes, there is a few niggles here and there that is wrong with the kit lens esp with 18-55, the most annoying part for me is the front part that rotates! Its freaking annoying and there are a few times where I ACCIDENTLY turned the motor and also MF is pointless for that kit lens unless it has a proper focusing ring in it.

Okay, lemme rephrase, if you got the kit lens with your body, then that is fine. Don't need to run about saying oh I need to get a new lens straight away because that lens will serve u well for the time being (until you got the money to fork out for a good lens, then you will say its a lame lens), but if you got the choice (as in your kit lens got broken/stolen/some more reasons), then forget the kit lens and aim for something worth your money. Of course the kit lens with the L designated on it is an exception, lol!

I bought my 50mm f/1.8 which really is the cheapest lens you can get, and I'm not missing my kit lens at all, in fact I use it for most of my shots now. The only time I took it out is when I need that wideangle for group shots.

Also when you buy good glasses, you will spend less time adjusting saturation slider, I'm not sure if its me or anything, but each time I use my kit lens, I need to adjust the saturation slider cause the color most of the time look dull to me and its the same result with or without a filter infront of the lens.

So for my conclusion and this is important, regardless any eq you use, in the end it is what behind the camera that matters, gears will only get you to certain heights (well you will need certain gear to get certain job done though and there is no running from it when the time comes), a pro can use the cheapest body w/ kit lens and shoot circles around a noob w/ pro eq's. So moral of the story, in camera world, the equipment will come to you (but not your money) when the time is right ;)
 
AFABS said:
Thanks for the clarifications on the lenses. I found the 40D body on ebay from what looks like a reputable seller for $775, which seems to quite a deal as compared to $889 on BH.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-CANON-EOS-4...4|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1308|301:1|293:1|294:50
Click to expand...

Dude if your looking at the 40D (nice camera), sign up at the link I posted earlier and watch for deals. There are at least 3-4 40Ds being sold each day. A lot of the guys there are pros and use the 40Ds as backups so theres not much use!! You can find amazing deals!

EDIT: Example of the deals....one posted right now!

Canon EOS 40D

Original everything except neckstrap

2 Canon batteries

Body is in 9/10 condition - one 1mm paint-wear spot on bottom right edge.

2nd owner. I've had it for about 12 days, but just got a great deal on a 50D.

approx 20550 using 40Dshuttercount (only 70 or so are mine) US$625 + actual shipping (To US)
 
I was actually at a Ritz Store closing last night and they had a Canon 30D body only for $589, and a 40D body only for $890 (20% off the clearance prices). Both are new with USA Warranties.

Good luck!
 
toxic said:
it's not. there are three versions, the first two sucked. note the "I" and "II" at the end, and that your version has "IS" at the end instead.
Click to expand...

In reality there is nothing wrong with the kit lenses from both Canon and Nikon, regardless of how cheap they are. Once one has used a kit lens for awhile, then one may want to upgrade. But one can do wonders with an entry-level camera and a kit lens. My best photos with a Rebel XT (my first DSLR camera), where taken through the cheapest kit lens around, the 18-55mm that came with this camera a few years ago.
ChenaBestFall06-1.jpg


Take a look at the photos taken with the EF-S 18-55mm (non-IS) kit lens:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522
 
Superb example AlaskaMoose, proving what is behind the camera is more important. However I do have a few questions, how did you nail that shot? the water reflection is just amazing and the whole scene just look perfect, did you photoshopped it or something? and it looks like it got a nice touch of HDR. Did you use any filters?
 
wheelhot said:
Superb example AlaskaMoose, proving what is behind the camera is more important. However I do have a few questions, how did you nail that shot? the water reflection is just amazing and the whole scene just look perfect, did you photoshopped it or something? and it looks like it got a nice touch of HDR. Did you use any filters?
Click to expand...
All I had was a cheap Promaster CPL over the kit lens. However, the lighting was perfect that evening (around 7:00 PM in Alaska), with lots of golden sunlight. I just opened the JPEG image with PSE4, increased lighting just a little, and then "Auto Smart Fix". That's pretty much what I did. The sad part about it is that it was not a planned shot whatsoever, since I was learning how to use the camera, and was set to JPEG instead of RAW as I do now. Nowadays I seldom use frames on my photos, have better lenses, Hoya CPL's, and shoot RAW, but haven't been able to duplicate that photo :)

Same area, but a few feet back from the water. Tokina 12-24 lens on this one, and Hoya CPL.
Chena092008.jpg
 
hmm, it seems polarizer is able to achieve unique effects. I think that what made the water look like a mirror, am I right?
 
AlaskaMoose said:
In reality there is nothing wrong with the kit lenses from both Canon and Nikon, regardless of how cheap they are. Once one has used a kit lens for awhile, then one may want to upgrade. But one can do wonders with an entry-level camera and a kit lens. My best photos with a Rebel XT (my first DSLR camera), where taken through the cheapest kit lens around, the 18-55mm that came with this camera a few years ago.
Click to expand...

ok, yeah, there's nothing wrong with the old kit lens. it's perfectly capable of taking great photos, like in your example. thing is, there's no point paying for these lenses since you can get much better ones for a little more, if not the same price (i should probably add this little detail to the list...). and your photos could have been better in terms of detail, if you had a better lens to take it with.

and just as another note: every lens will look great at web size. which leads me to another thought: i don't get why (some) people will spend thousands of dollars on top-of-the-line lenses, and not print larger than 4x6, if at all.
 
wheelhot said:
hmm, it seems polarizer is able to achieve unique effects. I think that what made the water look like a mirror, am I right?
Click to expand...

The water already looks like a mirror, but the polarizer blocks some of the unwanted light reflected on the water toward the lens and sort of blinding the sensor. Also, it adds contrast to the sky and clouds (the sky looks bluer).
 
toxic said:
ok, yeah, there's nothing wrong with the old kit lens. it's perfectly capable of taking great photos, like in your example. thing is, there's no point paying for these lenses since you can get much better ones for a little more, if not the same price (i should probably add this little detail to the list...). and your photos could have been better in terms of detail, if you had a better lens to take it with.

and just as another note: every lens will look great at web size. which leads me to another thought: i don't get why (some) people will spend thousands of dollars on top-of-the-line lenses, and not print larger than 4x6, if at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. However, some people may not have the extra cash to buy a better lens. In this case, using the kit lens can be rewarding, until being able to afford a better one. Also, a more expensive or better lens (or camera) may not make a difference for taking a photo of such a scene. A lot of times is just pure luck being at the right place and the right time. Also, one can learn as much as possible about a kit or any other lens by using it to take the best photos possible. For example, some people can't afford a kit lens, and buy the "nifty 50" in f/1.8 for $80.00, and take great photos that would put mine to shame.

I have reduced the quality and size of the photos above for web posting. The original images are quite large and of high resolution, but can only print them not larger than 8" x 10" in my printer (Epson Photo R280), and quite large on the right printer at full resolution.
 
AFABS said:
So as for lenses to put the Canon 40D, might these two be good choices? And is one better than the other?

Sigma 17-70mm/f2.8-4.5
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/419582-REG/Sigma_669101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_Macro.html

Tamron 28-75mm/f2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284399-REG/Tamron_AF09C700_28_75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html
Click to expand...

The Tamron, since it allows for f/2.8 all the way through. I have another Tamron (17-50mm f/2.8), and love this little lens. It's lightweight, sharp, and fast.
 
Consider a used K10D, awesome value, lots of camera for your money.

3 Features:

- Weather sealing (wouldn't get half my shots if it wasn't for it)

- In body shake reduction (saves you heaps of much money when buying lenses) Your 50mm lens will be instantly stabilized!

- Construction: handling / ergonomics / build quality / large bright viewfinder


If not there are the cheaper K200D and K2000 which I believe is the cheapest (current model) DSLR selling new these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back