Which camera and lens kit?

[lindsey holland]

<p>I'm looking for advice for a friend, who's just about to buy his first DSLR and lenses.<br /> He has a budget of around £1150 ($1750). He's been keen on photography for a while but until now, he's been frustrated with a prosumer camera (the Canon G11). <br /> His main interest is landscape photography but he's also keen to have a zoom for wildlife. Of the two, his priority is the landscapes.<br /> He's been looking at either the Canon 50D or the Nikon D90, and is inclined toward the latter, at the moment.<br /> Another friend, who's a photographer, has recommended the Nikkor 18-200mm VR to him. He found a kit comprising the D90 and this lens for his £1050/$1750 budget.<br /> I'm a photographer myself, and I hear warning sirens when someone mentions an all-in-one like an 18-200mm. I have Canon L series lenses myself and, as a pro, anything that doesn't quite cut it isn't an option for me, so I'm not too genned up on other lenses. But all the reviews I've read have suggested that the 18-200 does indeed have quality issues (fairly serious barrel distortion and edge blurring). <br /> So... my question is, what would you suggest for him? He's happy to buy a standard (but good) lens for landscapes and to wait a while before buying a bigger zoom. Primes really wouldn't suit him. What do you think?</p>

[starvy]

<p>Would he mind skipping on the D90 and buy a D3100 instead and spend more money on quality optics? Perhaps one zoom lens that starts from short telephoto and goes to 200, and another lens, maybe a prime wide for his landscape?</p>

[lindsey holland]

<p>That's what I'd usually advise - spend on glass, not on the camera body.<br>

I'm not sure, in his case. I do think he needs a good standard zoom, rather than a prime. If anything, he could skip the telephoto.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Though I'm a nikon shooter, I really like the T2i and zooms makes sense for beginner imo. Tell him to use the kit lens until he knows exactly what FL he wants before getting a more expensive lens. And the kit lens should be alright at f8 for landscapes... </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I, too, would advise your friend to avoid hyperzooms; they entail too many optical compromises. A wide or standard zoom would be preferable, particularly since he's mainly interested in shooting landscapes. And as for wildlife, 200mm is much is too short, anyway. He'd be better off getting a longer zoom or telephoto prime down the road.</p>

<p>As for bodies, I'm with Leslie that the Canon T2i is probably the best low cost option right now. It has basically the same sensor as the 60D and 7D, but is much cheaper. But I'm sure that Nikon also has bodies that would more than meet your friend's needs.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>With his limited finance I would suggest that he consider a pro-sumer camera which with tele adaptors will give him a huge reach .. my panasonic FZ50 with its Raynox 2020 gives me a 950mm equivalent angle of view .... but the crunch is in two bits .. firstly however much reach you have it is never enough and the camera does take some time to focus which maybe frustrating if trying to capture a bird hopping from branch to branch.</p>

[lindsey holland]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1521325">JC Uknz</a> - He already has a prosumer camera which he's looking to replace with a DSLR. Also, teleconverters wouldn't offer anything like the quality he's after. He should be able to get quite a good piece of amateur DSLR kit with £1050/$1750.<br>

I definitely think the T2i, or something similar, with some good glass is an option for him. Using the standard kit lens at f8 really wouldn't work though. Don't think he'll want to use f8 all the time! <br>

I'm wondering whether a used lens might be a better option. He could probably pick up a 24-105 L series for £600 used, and a t21 for about the same. That comes in a little over his budget, but it probably wouldn't be a problem for him. But it's possibly overkill in terms of him really needing an L series lens. <br>

Can you recommend any slightly cheaper lenses which perform surprisingly well, and which might fit with his requirements? Maybe something that's just one small step down from the L series? </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Well...whatever long range zoom you recommemd is prabably going to have distortion (especially at wide end). Even a $$$ pro 24-70mm 2.8 or one of those 18-200 all purpose zoom will both have it...That's is why I recommend the kit lens until he knows what FL he wants. What's wrong with F8 w/ kit lens on a tripod with landscapes? </p>

<p> </p>

[lindsey holland]

<p>f8 with kit lens on a tripod... the problem with it is that I know what he's like. There's no way that he'll want to lug a tripod around all the time and while he's interested in landscapes, he'll also want to use it for other, more general purposes. <br>

He's really wanting to spend out on something really good now. Not much point in buying a sub-par lens that he'll have to trade in before long. <br>

He definitely won't want a FL at any point.<br>

The 24-105 L is a superb lens, and the 24-70 L is also extremely good (although I have had to have mine recalibrated once because it started to back focus). I just don't think he needs to go quite as far as L series, what with him not being a pro.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Why not tell him to take a look at the EF-S 17-55/2.8, if you're reluctant to recommend the kit zoom?</p>

<p>It's reportedly optically very fine, and a used copy coupled with a new T2i should keep him within budget.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Lindsey, you're a pro, but your friend, I assume, is not. As a pro you need the very best cameras and lenses available. Amateurs have other considerations. There are cameras and lenses that may not meet a pro's needs, but do meet most amateurs needs. Superzooms do not match two or three high quality shorter ratio zooms in IQ, but they have other advantages that make them good choices for certain uses.</p>

<p>That said, I have a Nikon 18-200 VR (which I like very much), but I would not recommend it for what your friend wants to shoot. I also have a D90 and I just got a D3100 to use as a second camera. It quickly became my first camera. It's smaller, lighter, and has better IQ especially at high ISO's. I suggest a D3100 with the kit 18-55 VR and the new Nikon 55-300 VR. It's lighter than the Nikon 70-300 VR (which I also have) and will balance better on the light body. These lenses don't have the build quality of your pro lenses, but they are sharp and have VR for low light. Let your friend learn on these. Later he/she can upgrade as he/she gets a better understanding of what he/she needs and can afford, or he/she may find they are all he/she needs.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>He definitely won't want a FL at any point.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>FL = focal length FYI</p>

<p>Without knowing what FL he want...I, like your friend, would also recommend an all in one zoom. The lack of IQ probably won't matter much imo because he doesn't even want to lug around a tripod anyway...The all in one zoom will suit him well w/ease:)</p>

 

[lindsey holland]

<p>:) My mistake - FL also means Fixed Lens to me! Sorry!<br>

I'll have a chat with him about the various options you've all suggested. Thanks for your ideas!</p>

 

[philip_tam]

<p>If he likes landscapes, I believe kit lenses rotate the front element on focus, which would complicate filter use (filters can be important for landscape). So, I'd toss out the kit lens idea. The problem is the D3100 is only sold with the kit lens.</p>

<p>If your friend will do hiking to do landscapes, a D3100 would be preferable over the D90 due to weight. He could perhaps sell the kit lens. A great lens to start with is the 16-85mm. It covers a useful range without making too many sacrifices to optical quality. Later on he can get a telezoom: the 55-300 or the 70-300. I think he can afford a D3100/D90, a 16-85, and a 55-300. The 70-300 focuses significantly faster, but is more expensive however.</p>

<p>On Canon's side, the T2i is a great camera. It's light, and you do have to worry about AF-S compatibility like you do with Nikon's smaller models. The 15-85 seems like a good lens to start with, but it's somewhat more expensive than the Nikon counterpart and will cause the budget to be pushed.</p>

<p>The 'slow mid-zooms' that Nikon and Canon offer seem to be good all around lenses for people to start with while keeping the edge/corner sharpness that's needed for landscapes.</p>

<p>Lastly, unlike the kit lenses, if you friend wants to use polarizers or square filters, these zooms won't rotate during focusing, which will save a lot of frustration.</p>

[deirdre_saoirse_moen]

<p>If your friend's really interested in landscape, my one specific suggestion would be a full-frame camera so that the crop factor isn't an issue. That said, I intend to lead an SLR-free life (going EVIL and rangefinder instead), so I can't make specific suggestions.</p>

<p>I'm not a zoom lens person. I think three primes may do just fine in this case, but that's the way I'd go.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>There is the point that if, for landscapes where you want resolution you use a longer focal length with several overlapping frames you end up after the stitch with two.three. four times or more the resolution less 30% for overlap of the basic camera resolution .. such as 12 or 15Mp with a 3.3Mp camera. But of course that is an 'old fashioned' way of working in these days of high resolution cameras :-) But today it could give 30Mp with a 10 or 12Mp camera.<br>

The stitches being hidden by careful and intelligent editing rather than using a stitch program.<br>

I wonder why he is dis-satisfied with his G11 and why he thinks a DSLR will be better ... if it is simply the mistaken idea that a bigger camera is better :-) ... obviously the G11 with its limited zoom range will be lacking with some wildlife ... but when you consider the loss of light with the DSLR longer focal length lens versus the constant or near constant of say my FZ50, even with tele adaptors, it becomes a mute question. I guess he picked the wrong prosumer to start with :-)</p>

 

[simon_hickie1]

<p>On a DX format camera, I assume he'll be shooting landscapes at around f11 (smaller than that will reduce image sharpness due to diffraction). I also assume we are talking tripod here. I hate them but for a dedicated landscape shooter looking for high quality low ISO images at the start / end of the day he needs to budget for a good (and ideally light) one.</p>

<p>I would not recommend the Nikon 18-200mm. I had one and have now replaced it with the 16-85mm - a much sharper lens with useful 24mm equivalent at the short end. This is the lens to go for IMHO in the first instance if he goes Nikon. At £200 for the tripod, £400 for the lens and £50 for memory cards and bits and pieces, that leaves around £500 for the body. I'd go for the Nikon D3100 I think (subject to reviews). It's light so he'll take it with him.</p>

<p>As an alternative to the 16-85mm, the Tamron 17-50mm plus the new Nikon 55-300mm combination is over budget but may offer a bit more flexibility. </p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Rather than the Nikon or Canon cameras, you might consider the Sigma SD15. I suggest this camera, because it is a stellar performer with a very large RAW buffer. Sigma lenses are excellent quality, and the color rendition of the Sigma is superior. Eventually he may want to buy the Sigma 300-800mm lens. For now he could get the inexpensive 18-50 f2.8-4.5 OS HSM and 50-200 f4.5-5.6 OS HSM lenses or the venerable (but slightly pricier) 17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM Macro and the 70-300 f4-5.6 OS. Sigma's super zoom is the best of them all - 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 OS HSM with spectacular performance, at least equivalent to the Nikon and Canon lenses for significantly less money (just $480).<br>

-<br>

See what you think after reading some reviews at: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/<br>

-<br>

As an alternative, I suggest the Canon 60 D with the Canon 16-85mm lens. Why? Because he can choose whatever lens he wants for long shooting (possibly a 70-300 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html - but that is a pretty expensive lens). He might decide to get the Canon version of the Sigma lens, because it will save so much money. The reason I suggest the Canon is it has a fold-out screen. I can't tell you how important that is for me (as a landscape and nature shooter). In fact, it's so important that I plan to buy Sony's new A55. You should definitely look into that camera too. I like the Sony 16-105 f3.5-5.6 lens. It isn't an image-stabilized lens, but Sony builds that into the body of the camera. Plus, the Sony camera is less expensive, and the Sony lens costs less than the Canon lens. I also really really like the Sony 70-400 zoom.<br>

-<br>

If I had a bigger budget, I'd buy both the Sony and the Sigma, and when the new Sigma SD1 comes out I'd get that too. I believe in Sigma lenses. I own one now, and I've had another, more expensive one (12-24 EX DG HSM for my Canon 5 D). I am seriously considering buying the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM for the Sony, just to see if the image quality might actually be good enough for making 20x30 prints (the largest size I print). It's actually cheaper than the Sony 16-105 lens.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Check out the reviews in the camera and lens listings at B&H. Here are the links:<br>

-<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585342-REG/Sigma_C24900_SD15_14_Megapixel_SLR.html<br>

-<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/622376-REG/Sigma_861110_18_50mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_OS.html<br>

-<br>

And here is the link to the review of the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 at FredMiranda.com:<br>

-<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=403&sort=4&cat=37&page=1</p>

[scottelly]

<p>One advantage of the Sony is the fact that it will do automatic assembly of multiple images right at the time he is trying to shoot panoramas, so he can see if it's what he wants. The feature is amazing, and it's one reason I've decided to get that camera, no matter what. Check into it:<br>

-<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731596-REG/Sony_SLT_A55V_Alpha_DSLR_SLT_A55_Digital_Camera.html<br>

-<br>

The Sony A55 has a features list as long as my arm, and the image quality from that camera is probably going to be as good as you'll get from any Nikon you'll look at. Read the features, and you'll see why I'm buying it. I already played around with the A33 at a local Sony Style store, and I LOVE it. The A55 just shoots a little faster, captures at 16 megapixels instead of 14 megapixels, and has a built-in GPS, which includes location data in the meta-data of the image files. Those extras are well worth the extra $100.<br>

-<br>

Here's a review of the Sony:<br>

-<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/</p>

[lindsey holland]

<p>Well, after much initial confusion and technophobia he's ordered a D90 with a 16-85mm lens and he's considering a 70 - 300mm lens as well. <br>

Thanks for all of your advice! He did view this thread and found it very helpful.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>I can't fault the choice! A friend at my local camera club has the same combination and wins just about every internal competition going - mind you he is a highly competent photographer. Is he also buying a tripod? The Giottos MTL8261B seems very well regarded and is not too heavy at 1.6kg without head.</p>

[lindsey holland]

<p>Tripods.... if he gets a new one, I doubt he'll be wanting to pay Giotto prices at this stage. Despite wanting a really good camera set up, he's really not serious enough for that. I think he does have a tripod - not a very good one but sufficient for his needs at the moment. He doesn't hike much, to my knowledge - far more inclined to drive to locations that are easy to reach.<br>

My own tripod set up is a Manfrotto with their grip action ball head. I love it! Cheaper than a Giotto, too. If I had a serious telephoto lens, I'd need to upgrade it, but it suits my current kit perfectly.<br>

Anyway, I'm still trying to convince him to pay out for a decent quality polarising filter...!</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Ah, my kind of landscape photographer. In which case a Manfrotto 055xpro plus 496rc2 head would fit the bill nicely - eventually. You'll be talking him into ND grads next!</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Suggest that if he decides to try shooting macro, he get an old, used, manual focus 28mm lens and a reversing ring.<br>

-<br>

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK069990194170?r=FE<br>

-<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/82184-REG/General_Brand_AV52N_Reverse_Adapter_Nikon_to.html<br>

-<br>

For $27 and $16, totally less than $50 shipped, the set-up will give much larger magnification than would be possible with the typical micro (macro) lens from Nikon or a competitor like Sigma. Those lenses cost hundreds and don't give very much magnification (about twice what a good used 28-105 f3.5-4.5 D is capable of). BTW, he got a great all-around lens in the 16-85 VR. I've done a lot of research on that lens. Unfortunately I never did get to try one. Some day...<br>

-<br>

To learn more about macro stuff, check out my blog posting at MySpace:<br>

-<br>

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=35326765&blogId=539625505</p>