Forum menu
I'm taking the plunge and buying a digital SLR
I've decided to get a Canon 1000D which you can get body only or with a 18-55 kit lens.
Given that I won't be buying a variety of lenses anytime soon, would I be better off buying a fast 50mm lens and a larger zoom lens instead of the kit lens? Or is there a better single lens that I can get instead of the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 non IS)?
.... the majority of the pics I will be taking will be landscapes and action (biking) shots
What's the price difference between 'body only' and with the kit lens?
If there's not much in it, I'd go for the kit lens and the 'nifty fifty' (50mm, f1.8) while you save for a better zoom.
£60. So not a massive amount.
Also, the standard kit lens doesn't have image stabilisation (IS), is this much of an issue?
Also, the standard kit lens doesn't have image stabilisation (IS), is this much of an issue?
Yes. It means in many situations you'll need to use a tripod or bump up the ISO where you wouldn't need to with a stabilised lens. Stick to stabilised lenses (or get a stabilised body).
Or learn to stand still?
It's not a long lens.
Or learn to stand still?
Or with the same level of standstillingness you've still got another 3-stops to go with a stabilised lens. Whether that's a factor is down to the individual. Apparently not for you. It is for me.
I find the IS a real bonus for indoor shots on my 17-85mm canon lens. Worth getting it on the 18-55 lens too if that is what you are going for. It will allow you to take indoor shots without the flash.
Just in case the OP doesn't realise (apologies if you do!), the IS is no use whatso ever for mtb action shots - the extra 3 stops is will not increase the shutter speed, so your mtb shots will be a steady (but blurred) mess.
Personally I'd get the body only, and then buy a Sigma 17-85 2.8-4 IS lens which I've found to be fantastic (I have the older non IS non HSM version). Light ish, perfect range for biking shots + landscapes. Also nice and sharp.
Just in case the OP doesn't realise (apologies if you do!), the IS is no use whatso ever for mtb action shots - the extra 3 stops is will not increase the shutter speed, so your mtb shots will be a steady (but blurred) mess.
Agreed. I picked up on the landscape bit.
Yeah figured that was the case, but thought it was worth pointing out explicty.
Personally I'd get the body only, and then buy a Sigma 17-85 2.8-4 IS lens which I've found to be fantastic (I have the older non IS non HSM version). Light ish, perfect range for biking shots + landscapes. Also nice and sharp.
This is good advice if you can afford it. Both sigma and tamron do zooms that are very good and cheaper than canon.
The kit lenses that come with these kind of cameras are generally poor, so your better off getting a cheap prime and/or a zoom from sigma or tamron.
thanks, that's some good info
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat12.html
For cheapest prices - lens as well as cameras. Handy graph of what the price has been doing as well. Currently £305 for Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS Macro HSM and £289 for Eos1000, so £594 all in.
Why a 1000D and not a 500/550D ?
I got a 18-55mm kit lens with my 550D earlier this year and it's fine, but a little slow (dark). I am saving my pennies right now for an ef-s 10-22mm which is worth almost as much as my camera, but I am well informed that it is a superb wide-angle for landscape/weather shots...
Why a 1000D and not a 500/550D ?
money 🙂
think I'm going to get the 1000d body, a 18-55 IS kit lens, a 50mm f1.8 and then get a 70-300 next year