Canon 30D w/ kit lens or body only?

I am looking into buying a 30D. My background is minimal but I really want to

get into photography beyond the point and shoot.

 

Should I purchase the kit lens or should I buy the body only and upgrade? I'm

willing to spend $600-$800 on another lens or two instead of the kit. Even

though I'm new I'd rather not waste time on the kit lens if it's not worth it.

 

Right now I'm leaning towards purchasing the body only, I just need a little

nudge. So, if you were to start from scratch with just a 30D body, what lens

or lenses would you buy to get you started?

 

Thanks

Get the kit lens. It is only $100 or so and good as a starter. Once you find out its limitations and what you really need (faster?, wider?, longer?) you can buy different lenses, and sell the kit lens. In my opinion this will protect you from buying things you will not use and very much worth the price of the kit lens. Other suggestion would be to go with Rebel XT first and after a year switching to different body if you find XT to be insufficient.

Hello Rob, although the kit lens gets a lot of bad press, it is in fact a perfectly adequate lens. It's bad reviews stem from the fact that it's not an L and because it's plastic.

 

It can produce some very good results. That said, I did replace mine. There are some very good alternative Canon lenses available, 17-40, 24-104, 17-55/f2.8 EFS.

 

However, you may find it's worth using the kit lens to start with and then see what direction your photography takes you. You may find you are more interested in wide angle subjects or that you need a descent telephoto/zoom.

 

Forgive me if I have nudged you in the direction you don't want to go.

 

Cheers. Pete

Buy the kit lens - it's fine.

If you do not have Canon EF or EFs lenses in your kit now, or maybe even if you do, it seems a no brainer:

 

For a beginner or experienced photographer: Get the kit lens. Shop around for the best deal.

 

I have made this comment several times, and with expanded explanation.

 

If you hunt for a good price, it will end up costing you only a few dollars more for body and kit lens, for which you will have a good walk about daylight lens to use for several years.

 

Regards WW

Here's a different suggestion: Buy the Rebel XTi body only, and use the money saved on one or two better lenses. And if you haven't considered the XTi, take a look at this review which compares it with the 30D:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/rebel%20xti.shtml

 

The golden rule of most experienced photographers is to spend money on the glass, not the body. If you are going to be replacing the kit lens in the near future, why not get a better quality lens now? A $100 is still a $100 that could go towards your investment in good lenses.

If you are willing to spend another $600-$800 on a lens, then get the ef-s 17-85 f4-5.6 IS. Not a spectacular lens, but loads better than the kit, and with added features, such as IS, ring USM, and FTM focus, and a distance window.

While I'll mention one possibly alternative, I think you should get the kit lens. Assuming

you

are new to DSLR (or even SLR) photography, you are more likely to make good lens

selections

once you know your camera and your needs a bit better. The cost of the kit lens is next to

nothing, the quality is OK, and you'll learn a lot by taking photos with it - and then be able

to

better determine if you need additional lenses, and which ones will serve you best.

 

You _could_ look at the 17-85mm EF-S lens as an alternative to the kit lens since it covers

a

bit more zoom range, has IS, etc. However, it is also quite a bit more expensive.

 

Also, assuming that you are a first-time DSLR buyer ("background is minimal") why are you

getting a 30D rather than the 400D/Rebel XTi? This new camera is a fine piece of

equipment, costs less, actually has some features that are not on the 30D, and is plenty of

camera for a buyer in your category.

 

I'd seriously consider the 40D/Rebel XTi with the kit lens. Or, if you are convinced that you

need to spend X amount of money, why not the XTi with the 17-85mm lens instead of the

30D with the kit lens?

Iori

 

I agree about $100 toward another lens.

 

I shopped hard and got my kit lens and 20D for $AUS30 more than 20D body only best price, thats about $US22.

 

Hence my point about shopping hard, at least in Australia the shop I bought from was willing to cut the profit on the kit lens to make the sale, can not see why this would not work elsewhere.

 

Regards, WW

For $22, I would jump on it.

There are lots of good ideas presented here so what I'm going to say may not sway you much one way or the other. I bought the 30D body only with the grip because I have two lens from my EOS 5 which suit me fine now. Of course, I need another. Or three.

 

That said, the lens kit looks fine but it really depends on what you want to do down the line. The kit is not a huge investment but you can invest in what you want to do now or you can buy what you wish to do later. With a minimal background you might invest yourself in photography now and find out what works best for you. (Lots of "invenstment" here, I know.) Photography gives one huge options; when you first dive in give yourself as much space, financially and aesthetically and educationally, as possible. First things first.

For what it's worth,

Sandy

If I should choose between these two options:

 

1. Expensive camera + cheap lens

 

2. Cheap camera + expensive lens

 

I would choose the latter. Good lenses are more important to imagequality than the good cameras. So my suggestion will be the 400D and the 17-55mm f2,8 IS.

I wouldn't bother with the kit lens - get something reasonable (17-85mm EF-S IS lens) or even better save-up and get the 17-55mm EF-S IS f2.8 lens).

 

I've been trading-up lenses ever since I bought my cameras (350D and now a much better 30D). Which isn't the cheap way to do it.

It doesn't make sense to me either to get a rather expensive camera like the30D and then

such a cheapo lens. Why don't you get a 400D instead of the 30D, and add a decent zoom

with constant f2.8 aperture with the money you saved? Canon's 17-55 or the Tamron 17-55

F2.8, which would be just as good but cheaper.

The kit 18-55 lens is not as bad as people make out as long as you stop it down well, and if you are new to DSLR photography it is probably a good place to start as you don't know what you need or want yet.

 

I think you have two stratagies.

 

a) Get the body + kit lens and fill out with other lenses and kit either side of the kit lens focal length as your photography developes. Finally replace the kit lens with a better lens.

 

b) Get the body and a better lens to cover the core range. What you should get is very complex and depends on what you want to shoot. Choices might be the EF-S 17-85 although this is not a top quality lens IMHO, the 17-55 f2.8 IS or the 17-40 f4L. These might be a bit over your budget however.

 

I took path a) when I got my 20D and was very glad of it despite 30 years of film photography. This allowed me to cover the core focal lengths whilst adding functionality with lenses like EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, EF-S 10-22, EF 200 2.8L and EF 50 f1.4.

If anyone thinks this lens is not capable of fantastic results. Check out some of the award

winning photos it has taken.

 

http://www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=1115

The 18-55 kit lens does get a lot of bad press, not because it's a bad lens, but simply because other lenses are better. But for a beginner, it's probably a good starter lens. And since it's not that expensive of a lens, should you decide later to replace it with something else, once you know your own needs better, you won't be out all that much.

 

Another option, available at a lot of dealers as an optional "kit" lens, is the 17-85, which increases your focal range and adds image stabilization and an ultra-sonic motor. Basically, for $300 more, you can go from the lens rated the lowest by many to one rated quite high by many.

 

As a beginner you might also want to consider the Digital Rebel XTi. Not quite as rugged as the 30D, but it's lighter and is aimed more at beginners like yourself. It's also got a higher megapixel rating. For roughly the price of the 30D with the 18-55 kit lens, you can get a Rebel XTi with a better grade 17-85 lens instead.