Just Starting with DSLRs need HELP

[chris_c14]

Hi everyone,

 

This is my first time posting on here, but I have been reading through some of

the forums online to try and figure out what kind of DSLR and lenses I should get.

Here is what I am planning to take photos of, none of which I am looking to do

professionaly:

Outdoor sports: Baseball, Football (Cleveland Browns training camp)

Indoor sports: Basketball (I go to college at Xavier, and the arena is very well

lit, and I usually sit 3-5 rows from the floor)

Wildlife and landscapes: My family goes on a vactaion every summer, 3 years ago

we went to Yellowstone, which is when i bought my digital point and shoot camera

I have now, fuji s3100. This summer we are taking a cruise to Alaska and I have

gotten so into photography i figured it would be a good time to update to a

digital SLR.

Through research I have to come like the canon series the best. I have narrowed

it down to the Canon 30D and the Canon Digital Rebel XTi. Which do you all

think about be better suited for my needs?

As you may have expected I need help with lenses as well. I was looking at:

70-200mm 2.8L

70-200mm 4L

70-200mm 2.8L IS

70-200mm 4L IS

the above lenses I thought would be good for sports and outdoor wildlife, any

thoughts? Do I need IS? Would it help on a big lens like that? Would it hurt?

I was told that Canon's 50mm 1.8L would be fine for basketball as long as I am

sitting close to the floor. Thoughts?

I was also thinking I would need a "generic" zoom lens. Any thoughts?

Sorry I typed so much, I just have a lot of questions. I have been saving my

money in college and thought it time to reward myself with something nice. I

was looking to spend no more then $2000 and idealy $1500 on the body and the

lenses. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Chris

[mark soares]

are you kidding me? for $2000 for the body just get the Nikon d200, a nice wideangle lens and a telephoto and you should be all set.

[dcheung]

^ I think he meant $2000 total.

[chris_c14]

Yeah sorry about being unclear... between 1500-2000 total

[milton-chris]

Chris,

Given your limited budget, it is probably best to go with the XTi and then put that money saved towards the lenses. My limited experience and much reading says that you don't have the budget to get the L lenses. Get the Canon 50mm/f1.8 II - about $70. Next, you will want a 'kicking around' lens, and you would probably get frustrated with the above, as it would not be very wide for pics of pals and stuff at school, so even the canon 17-55 that comes with the XTi would work well. That comes out to about $800 to $900 so far, and now you want another lens. Hmmmmm.

 

I have a 'wanton lust' for the following lens, and have not heard anything bad about it, and you could get it to make the package of everything fit in or around $1900 - $2,000. This lens would be the Sigma 50-500. I'm getting mine in a couple of weeks now.

 

There are a couple of other things you will need, and they are external flash - best deals I've seen are the Canon 420 EX, around $150; Monopod around $50 and tripod to support the heft of the 50-500 which will add another $200 or so. You may think you can get away without these things, but, really, you will be mad if you go on a cruise like that and get fuzzy foto's. Likewise, the outdoor sports pics with the monopod or tripod will be vastly superior.

 

This is my opinion and should be read as coming from someone who has been using a 'real' dslr (XTi) for only 2 months, and has shot about 8000 pics over that time and gained tons of insight from this Canon eod forum.

 

Chris

[synnacdesign]

I personally have a preference for the 30D but the Rebel is lighter. I think overall in the longer run you will be happier with the 30D do to its specs and better build. However there is a tough price difference. I think there is 400-500 bucks difference. Go <a href="www.bhphotovideo.com">BHphotovideo</a> and compair the 2 to each other.

 

I do think though that you need to revisit your lens choices and budget. Not that the lenses you are thinking of are not good, quite the oposit, but those lenses will blow your budget (nearly) by themselves. 1000-1600 bucks I believe.

 

Also I think you will need a lens with a shorter focal length than 70. Personally I use the EFS lenses 10-20, 28-80 and 70-200. Granted the last 2 are older EFS EOS lenses I still had from my film camera, but they do an excelent job.

 

The question about IS...it is great to have, it also depends on your type of photography. Not a must for landscape, not a must if you use a tripod, though it does come in handy at low light photography and sports. Handy...nearly a must actually lol. But then IS does increase the price of your lens conciderably. Your 70-200 L lense will go from 1000 bucks to 1600bucks because of the IS.

 

Do you have a good camera store around where you live? not a bestbuy or circuit city. But a proper photography store. Might be good to visit them, hold the cameras and lenses and ask questions there.

 

It is important to actually feel the camera and its weight, button positions and so forth before you buy.

 

If you are thinking 30D plus 2 L lenses with IS and a generic zoom, I believe you should easily hit 3500bucks. So you might need to rethink the lenses.

 

Good luck and hope you find what you are looking for.

[milton-chris]

ps - I also meant to say that you might be frustrated on the cruise at not having a really wide lens, but if you use the kit lens at 17mm and then use the provided eos software, you can really easily stitch the pics together for great panoramics.

 

Chris

[dcheung]

I could have sworn the kit lens starts at 18mm, not 17mm.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Chris,

 

Well Chris, you mentioned taking photos of sports (football and basketball), and you mentioned the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS and the Canon 50 f1.8 as candidate lenses. Those two lens will provide you much of what you need to get excellent results in taking sports photos.

 

Now the body. Either the Canon XTi or the Canon 30D will also provide you an excellent camera.

 

The cost of this setup is much more than your desired $2000.

But, if you could swing such a setup, it'll be a great base to expand from. There's probably no better lens than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS for sports. Everyone that has ever bought one has only praise for it's perforance.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[icd55]

Chris,

 

Get yourself a 30D with the kit lens 18-55mm, Sigma 70-200mm 2.8, Canon 50mm 1.8.

I have the Sigma lens that I use for all sports. Outside and inside venues. The Sigma is a great

lens at half the cost of the Canon 70-200mm. I think you'll be close to you $2000 limit.

[aaron_lam]

If you aren't in a rush, consider waiting till PMA later this month and see what Canon announces... maybe a cheaper consumer body or at the least, the current lineup will drop.

<p>

If you want to get a cheap body and have the option of upgrading later on, I can recommend the Rebel XT (I just got my girlfriend one used with kit lens for $450). Some places are still selling them new or refurb for around $500. I think it is a great starter camera and not sure the XTi justifies the $250 extra for more a bit more MP and the sensor clean which I don't think has been that well accepted. Another alternative is the 20D if you want a nicer body. It is essentially the 30D (same sensor) and can be gotten used for $650 - $800.

<p>

I would say Rebel XT with kit lens for $475 (should be easy to find).<br>

Sigma 70-200 for about $700 or spring for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. ~$950 used or $1100 new.<br>

Canon 50 f/1.8 for low light > $100

 

<p>

That would set you back about $1275 under your budget. Use the extra money to get a good tripod or monopod if you are dedicated to sports and maybe a 1.4x converter or 2x converter. That will give you extra reach for sports. You could find just the XT body and get the 17-40L (~$600 used)... a very nice value. Or a 10-22mm (~$600) which will give you a true wide angle. I don't support getting EF-S lenses but that is a much argued idea with valued points on both sides.

 

Good luck!

 

 

aaron

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Chris,

 

My experience is that once you've tried a Canon IS lens, you become hooked.

 

Keep reading within this forum on how an IS lens provides you 3 extra stops.

And in the case of sports photography, 3 extra stops of shutter speed is "priceless".

 

What's great is that you can hand hold the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS in your sports situations instead of finding yourself having to use a monopod or trying to hand hold a non-IS lens ending up with many shots allocated to the 'trash can'. And the IS feature doesn't prevent you from also using a monopod to maybe even gain another stop or two.

 

I'm not sorry spending the extra money for the IS lens... and in fact I'm delighted with my decision to buy the IS lens.

 

Again, I hope this helps. Keep reading.

 

//Chuck

[ian_reid]

dont spend your money on the IS unless your really gonna use it. remember, it only helps camera shake, not freeze action. so no, it does not help at all for sports. the f2.8 is what is really getting you the speed you need to freeze the action. I have the 70-200 2.8 non IS and i know this lens will satisfy you in quality, but i sometimes wish i had something a little longer=/. The sigma 50-500 does sound tempting but to slow i think. its a tough decision so good luck and read everything you possibly can before making your purchase.

 

oh yeah, check out the 20D for a body, you wont be dissapointed with price or quality.

 

once again, good luck

[aaron_lam]

Yes the 70-200 IS is the best telezoom for sports... that is undisputed... but at a $1600 new price tag (maybe $1350 used if you are lucky), it is out of the $2000 limit with a 30D and really close with a 20D or XTi. You will be better off filling out your range and plopping $150 for a good monopod and decent ballhead.

 

Good luck!

 

 

aaron

[m_barbu1]

<p>I think you could benefit from the additional buffer in the 30D, as opposed to the XTi. However, having said that, you should really pick out your lenses first, and then get whatever body you can afford with the rest (maybe even if it's used, and last year's model). You really don't want to skimp on the lenses.</p>

 

<p>If you *really* want to stay under $2000, and have good quality, I would consider these lenses:</p>

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=102851&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">EF 28mm f/1.8 USM</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=12182&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">EF 85mm f/1.8 USM</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=129190&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM</a></li>

</ul>

 

<p>You won't have the flexibility of a zoom, but that's the price you pay for having quality, and not spending a lot for it. As good as the 50mm f/1.8 lens is, I can't in good conscience recommend it for a 1.6x FoV crop camera like you are considering. I had one and sold it, because it rarely was a useful focal length for me.</p>

 

<p>One last thing. Be wary of being fooled into thinking an indoor facility is well lit -- especially when you need fast shutter speeds, like you do when shooting sports. For this reason, I would suggest not considering any lenses that are slower than f/2.8 (even that might not cut it at times).</p>

[awindsor]

I would be another vote for the XTi ($774). I would also vote for the 70-300/4-5.6 IS (about $550). I think that this represents the best value in a telephoto lens at the moment (the 70-200/4L is roughly the same price and better built but lacks IS and stops at 200mm). If you are really keen on indoor sports then the suggestion of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 ($850) is a good one. You lose 100mm and IS but gain two stops of light at 200mm. The extra speed is useful for freezing action in dim auditoriums. IS in a long lens is wonderful

 

You are right to grab a 50/1.8 for low light work and portraiture.

 

The remaining choices are murky with little standing out.

 

I would suggest a Sigma 10-20 ($500) for landscapes and architecture. This would provide very wide (16mm equivalent) to almost normal (32mm equivalent). The normal end is useful for group social photography.

 

Alternatively, or additionally, you could get a normal zoom (Tamron 17-50/2.8 $440, Sigma 18-50/2.8 $420, or Sigma 17-70 $390). The 2.8 lenses are excellent for shooting events indoors (and social photography) while the 17-70 is a lens you could put on your camera and cover a large range of focal lengths with reasonable optical performance (there are 18-200 type lenses but none of them are particularly good).

 

If you went with the ultrawide and skipped the normal zoom then you could get either the kit lens to cover the missing 20mm-50mm gap or leave it unplugged (or grab a 35/2 $220).

 

None of the lenses I suggest are the best but all represent good value.

[awindsor]

Focal length choices are very personal things. I wouldn't have recommended the 50/1.8 on a full frame body but merrily recommend it on a 1.6x crop factor body where it serves as a very good (excellent for the money) portrait lens. The 85/1.8 was a very popular lens in the full frame days. My 50/1.8 sees a lot of use on my 20D (and didn't on my film bodies) whilst my 35/2 sees considerably less use.

 

The advantage of the XTi over the earlier Rebels is the improved AF (same as in 30D). I don't think the earlier Rebels even have a high precision central sensor.

 

Indoor sports are indeed a very demanding area. You need fast shutter speeds to freeze the action but the arena is dim. Basically this means wide aperture or high ISO and often it means both. Primes do give excellent speed for the money (for my lowlight jazz photography I use primes exclusively) but you lose flexibility.

[ulrich_brandl]

Within your budget, I would choose, like many others, the d-Rebel XTi. For your purposes I would go with the Sigma 2.8 70-200 and a monopod for sports and the Tamron 2.8 17-50 for everything whre the 70-200 is too long. The latter is much better than the kit lens and is a good choice for portraits and group shots. For sports 1:2.8 is a big advantage for motion freezing shutter speeds and is more useful than IS. Reduce shake with the monopod (also more comfortable to hold the heavy lens over a long time).

 

Ulrich

[lheusinkveld]

You mentioned a cruise...if you will be taking pictures from onboard ship (or from small boats if you go on that type of excursion) you will need to handhold the camera. Using a monopod or a tripod will transmit the vibration from the ship's engines and you will get blurry pictures. For this trip IS will really pay off.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Using a monopod or a tripod will transmit the vibration from the ship's engines</i></p>How small of a cruise ship have you been on? ...or how close to the engines? ;-)

[dan_f5]

From what I can see there isn't a whole lot of difference in the 30D and the XTi. The 30D is for sure the Pro version but the have alot of the same features. Both allow you to use either the auto modes, the semi-manual modes, or the full manual modes. In the auto modes you can look at what the camera thinks is right for the situation and you can then switch to a semi-manual mode and make adjustments until you get the shots you want. I have an XTi and I just can't stop shooting with it.

 

The only thing I wish I had was better lenses. My wife tried to talk me into not getting the kit lens and just the body itself and I should have listened to her. The few bucks you would save would allow you to buy a better lens. As far as IS, I would consider it a huge advantage if you have to handhold the camera (a tripod doesn't fit well in the stands), or if you would have to swing the camera back and forth to catch all of the action from both sides of the court.

 

You also have to include a memory card into your budget. I don't believe either camera comes with one, and if it did it would only hold a handful of pictures. A 2 gig card would be the smallest I would consider. Since we are talking about memory cards you want to look at the read write speeds. Lexar makes a 2 gig cf card that is "Capable of sustained write speeds of 20 MB per second" http://store.lexar.com/index.cfm?productid=CF2GB-133-380&bhcp=1 . If your shooting basketball or other fast moving sports you don't want to wait for your camera to finish writing to the memory card before you can take your next shot.

 

I agree with everyone else about the tripod/monopod idea. It's a must.

 

The way I would figure it I would put heavy emphasis on the lenses, add the price of a memory card, then figure out the camera body and get it all at the same time.

[todd_owen]

I feel your '' pain '' right now. I too have just gotten into the whole DSLR series of photography too. I would recommend you go with the XTi Rebel myself.I say this for the fact of the Rebel Series being well made and crafted. It has so many lenses and so many extra " toys " you can get for it , that if you decide to later on aquire a newer more PRO style camera it will be able to use most of waht you already have. Sometimes i have seen so mamny people get THE BIGGEST AND BEST thing they can buy , only to be overwelmed by the BELLS AND WHISTLES. Eventually you get bored with it or it becomes a really cool PAPAER WEIGHT. Start out with something you feel comfortable with , i know several places allow you to RENT cameras before you buy them.As for lenses , i would suggest a good telephoto lens of around a 28 - 200 its a good all around shooter lens. If you want to get into more close up shots go with a 17 - 70 2.8 lens for potraits and flowers and such. HAPPY SHOOTING , and always rememeber . NO MATTER WHAT CAMERA YOU BUY , IT WILL NOT MAKE YOU A PHOTOGRAPHER ITS ALL UP TO YOU.