MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Returning to SLR photography (digitally that is) and have narrowed the camera body down to a Nikon D40 / 50 (70 poss) or Canon 350d ... on the basis that they're not too expensive 2nd-hand and they're relatively small and light.
Most of my photogrpahy will be of the family (kids and dogs), portraits, woodland shots ... but in a very amateur (but interested) way. No pics will be blown up beyond 10x8 I reckon.
After a lens and requirements are:
- approx 25-125mm zoom length
- ability to throw the background well out of focus
- reasonably large aperture
- lightish and compact-ish
Confused whether to
- stick with a Canon / Nikon offering vs Sigma / Tamron etc
- are benefits like image stabilisation worth the extra money
- is the principle that a great lens really makes the most of a camera / pic quality, or will a starter / basic lens be good enough for 90% of shots?
And, any specific recos in that rough zoom range?
Thanks
are benefits like image stabilisation worth the extra money
I'm no expert, but I wish I'd gone for an IS lens.
That said, my Sigma 17-70 is a fast f2.8 though, which is why I chose it over the equivilent Canon.
If you do go for a Canon, try and fing a 400D rather than a 350. I handled a 350 and it seemed rather plasticy to me. I could have got it cheap (Used) but decided to shell out on a new 400D which seemed a lot sturdier. In use, that's been a wise decision. It's had a right battering and has never skipped a beat. I'm very happy with it.
If you go for a Nikon these lenses always seem to crop up in conversation:
http://www.bythom.com/18135lens.htm
Blimey! How do you answer that easily .... I'm not even going to try too other than to say that you get what you pay for and it is worth investing in a good piece of glass (IMO).
IS or VR is worth the extra (IMO), as it allows you to get crisp results, handheld, in lower light conditions than 'norm' lenses.
I have 2 kit Canon lenses and they are not as good as my two Sigma lenses - but then i bought the Sigmas for specific purposes (Macro and Ultra Wide Angle). The kit lenses (18-55 and 55-250) are perfectly good enough for what I use the lenses for, so I'm not saying they are no good and i would say that the kit lenses will suit what you need for 90% of the time.
Remember that with a crop sensor, the mm range of a lens does NOT relate to the old 35mm camera zooms/views and as a rough approximation, multiply the lens rating by 1.6 to reach the 35mm equivalent - just depends if you are thinking of lens in relation to 'old' 35mm or full sensor cameras.
Just beware, the bug will bite and before you know it, you have outgrown 3 kit bags and have enough equipment to make your knees crumple!
🙂
Start simple.
Pick up any of those bodies, maybe pass on the D50 and add the 400D into the mix as PP suggested, with a kit lens, or similar short/medium zoom. Use it for a while, then think about what sort of pictures you're taking mainly, and add the appropriate lenses etc. It needn't cost a bomb if you don't want it to, but so easily you can end up investing in stuff you don't necessarily use.
Having said that, buying a lens then figuring out what you can do with it is fun, but not necessarily cheap.
A 50mm fixed lens is a cheap way of getting a fast portrait lens, helps you to isolate subjects.
Don't underestimate the value of a flash either- cheap if you buy a secondhand generic job and a wireless remote, and can provide more fun than most lens purchases in my opinion.
For the nikon bodies, I have d40 and think its great- for me, i find nikons alot easier to use than canons. The only thing is, I wish it had more megapixels as I'm doing larger prints alot and reckon they could be better. Be fine with 10x8 prints though, but dont rule out getting some good ones blown up large!
Can't comment on the specific items that you mention, but my principle has always been to buy the best I can afford and avoid losing money in the (inevitable) upgrade when you realise that the more expensive item would have been the better buy in the first place...
What vinnyeh says ^^.
get the body with whatever kit lens it comes with, work out what you're mostly taking pics of and what you'd like the lens to do then hire from here: http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/ until you've figured out what you want.
Then buy.
Simple!
- approx 25-125mm zoom length
- ability to throw the background well out of focus
- reasonably large aperture
- lightish and compact-ish
That list is pretty mutually exclusive. You'd need 2 lenses to do that. Or possibly 4.
Reckon Mr Poddy's choice of a Sigma 17-70mm would be fine especially on a crop sensor, multiply focal length by 1.6 on a Canon.
Only f/2.8 at the wide end though, but still gives nice image quality, very pleased with mine
Another choice might be something like a Sigma 18-125mm with stabiliser might be a good range for you, but no idea what people think of it
One thing to remember is that the D40 has no in body AF motor, so all lenses need their own.
just a thought - look at sony / pentax ./ samsung bodies ( i own pentax ) as they have image stabilisation built into the body = cheaper lenses not requiring IS in lens... plus if K mount pentax trillions of old and VERY nice lenses out there on ebay...for very little....
paul
Has anyone said get a cheap(ish) fast 50mm prime. The Nikon f1.8 can be had for £50 I think and the f1.4 I've got is more but still won't break the bank. Not as flexible as a zoom (and not a replacement for as decent range of zoom coverage - or an extortionate full set of primes) but superb quality for the cash and they suck in the available light like you wouldn't believe.
The lens for shooting in say a pub or a club in the evening without flash.
Other than that the new breed of IS and VR lenses do work. SfB likes his 18-200 alot (decent lens, I'd happily have it), but I prefer a 16-85 and a 70-300 mainly because I rarely use more than 85 (and the minuscule extra 2mm at the bottom is my sort of thing) but when I do I generally know in advance and I like some in hand.
Sadly the more you pay for any given set of features the better the glass normally - though mere mortals can't always tell
AIUI the D40 doesn't have a motor to drive the lens, so you can't use the cheap Sigma / Tamron lenses as they are motor less (or that's what I was told when I bought my D80).
The Nikon 18-105 Nikon VR is supposed to be quite good I think.
The 18-135 that was linked to above (non-VR) is fine. I've got one of these & the drawbacks that I notice are lack of VR and a plastic mount.
Otherwise the 17-70 that PeterPoddy mentions would be a good choice.
I'd go for Nikon over Canon as I find them more intuitive to use & the build quality of their 'enthusiast' cameras is better than Canons.
Get a Ixus 970IS with 5x zoom. It's all you need 🙂
many thanks all - input much appreciated
Has anyone said get a cheap(ish) fast 50mm prime.
Oh yes, I've got a nifty fifty as well. I don't use it as much as I should but it takes the most wonderful portraits and f1.8 is brilliant for action shots. Very, very sharp images. They're about £60-70 now from One Stop Digital. I got mine for about £54 when the $ was low, but they are worth every penny. 🙂
I've recently bought a Nikon D60, with an 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 to go with it. The camera was ex-display so was cheap, but I checked it out on dpreview.com, and they had lots of good things to say about it. My ideal setup would be something like the D60, with either the Nikon 18-200, or even better, the Tamron 18-270 f3.5. I've used Tamron lenses for years on my old Contax film cameras, and the range of that one lens, with its compact dimensions, makes it ideal.
If you can find a D70s with the original kit lens (18-70mm) second hand, grab it. Or even just the lens - it's universally regarded as the best of the kit-lens bunch. Not massively fast in terms of apperture and throwing background out of focus, but a great zoom range and sharp as tacks.
Gave mine to my mum along with a D70 and really miss it....
Lots of good advice so far - my two cents, spend less on the camera body and more on the lens if you have to choose, any of the cameras you list will take plenty good enough pictures.
IS is great, especially on long lenses, but not a substitute for a wider max aperture.
If you're thinking Nikon, the fact that the D40 (and some other Nikon bodies) have no autofocus motor means your second hand lens choice is *very* reduced - lenses need to be AF-S.
Deciding Canon vs Nikon, I'm quite sure there's nothing to tell picture quality wise between them at similar price levels, but for me Nikon wins every time just for the ISO-Auto feature which, as far as I know, Canon haven't implemented yet on a DSLR (but they will). It lets the camera control the sensitivity as well as the white balance, aperture and shutter speed - that means if it's too dark to take the picture with the settings you've chosen for aperture and shutter, the camera can boost the sensitivity so you get the shot more often without having to change the sensitivity manually. It's a killer feature.
I have Auto ISO on my Canon, so presumably quite a few others will too
Just buy what SfB uses.
wrt the auto ISO, on the Nikons you basically say I want to shoot up to this shutter speed on ISO XXX.
If the shutter speed needs to increase to get a correct exposure, then put the ISO up instead. I think you can also set it to a max ISO as well and above that, the camera will start slowing down the shutter speed.
Not sure if it's the same on the Canon. Probably v. similar.
I'd agree with the comment about perhaps spending more on the lens than the body.
Tijuana Taxi, have you now? I'd be interested to know - which model Canon?
Thanks again - have found a Nikon D70 with original 18-70 lens. Has c.20k shutter actuations - is this a concern (camera looks in v good nick tho.). It seems a fair price.
A good way to get going? Thoughts pls?!
The nikon 18-55 mkII kit lens is very good. The 50mm f1.8 is superb. the 55-200VR is a great lens to partner the 18-55. If you like ease of use, and have a few quid to spare, Nikon's 18-200VR is remarkable.
VR is good if your subject does not move and you have to shoot at long shutter speeds, it will help avoid camera shake. For moving subjects, there is no advantage. I'd spend the money on a tripod instead.
I'd have thought the 17-70 f2.8 wouldn't fit the light/compact specification.
Id look for a D40 or D60 second hand, D70 if you prefer a solid build. the 18-70 kit lens is a step up from the 18-55 if you find it second hand too!
The D3000 as the "new" choice isn't great in my opinion, the D40 is probably a better bet!
Buy the best glass you can afford, and don't worry too much about the body. Get a body that feels good in your hand. Good glass on an average body will produce better results than average glass on a good body.