First Digital SLR Purchase - Which One?

[brianchapman]

For what it's worth, DPReview just posted their 450D review...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS450D/

[Scrat]

OK first off everyone on this forum has been, helpful would be an understatment, extremely kind. I have been doing some more reading and I think that I will go with th Canon 40D. It's a little more cash but it is not all plastic(I know how I am on stuff), 6.5fps opposed to 3.5(action photos like wrestling, motocross, etc) I just think this would be a better camera for me.

Now the next question, which lense? I will be taking a lot of photo's inside and outside. Occasionally landscape photo's. I have been reading on lenses but haven't quite got a total grasp on it yet. I am more of a hands on type person. if I had one I could fiddle around with I would grasp it a lot faster.

Any opinions on the 40D and glass would be appriciated.

Thanx again
Scrat

[sebasj]

If price is not object, the 24-105 f/4 L USM IS is much praised, and I believe its deserved. My father has one and it's stellar for a zoom. Though he prefers to go with 4 primes instead of a zoom, he admits it's a heck of a lens (and no, if he would have to choose one lens to have, would not be that zoom, would be a prime, but he's a purist and I have that heritance )

Best regards,
Sebas.

[brianchapman]

You need to decide how wide you want to go before you can start looking at lenses. 24mm on a 40D (or any non-full-frame camera) is about 1.5 or 1.6x longer than the number...so 24 is equvalent to 35ish. I decided I needed something wider so my choices were more limited. In the end I went with a Canon 10-22 EF-S lens and then I already had a Tamron 24-135 however for landscape work I rarely use the Tamron.

Check out the reviews on slrgear.com when you've got a handfull of candidates - they have done some excellent lens tests and have very helpful reviews.

[xeliex]

If price is not object, the 24-105 f/4 L USM IS is much praised, and I believe its deserved. My father has one and it's stellar for a zoom. Though he prefers to go with 4 primes instead of a zoom, he admits it's a heck of a lens (and no, if he would have to choose one lens to have, would not be that zoom, would be a prime, but he's a purist and I have that heritance )

Best regards,
Sebas.

You have a cool father

I tend to like primes as well.
For your shooting purposes, ie: moving things and fast subjects, you do need someting that foucse fast and has a useable range. The recommended 24-105 would be excellent for that.
I would also consider one of the 70-200mm's. With or without image stabilization and f/2.8 to f/4. But they are quite pricey.

I personally would get a fast fixed focus lens and experiment with it a bit before buying any zooms. Test if the aperture compromise (since zooms usually have narrower apertures) is ok with you. The 50mm f/1.4 on a 40D would be good for portraits and general shooting.

[Scrat]

Thanx guys! OK one more ? What about Canon's 55-250 IS for under $300? Over on the Canon forum they have some pics with this camera and they are stellar in my opinion. A lot of people over there say it's a good lense.

Any responses?

Thanx
Scrat

[sebasj]

You have a cool father

I tend to like primes as well.
For your shooting purposes, ie: moving things and fast subjects, you do need someting that foucse fast and has a useable range. The recommended 24-105 would be excellent for that.
I would also consider one of the 70-200mm's. With or without image stabilization and f/2.8 to f/4. But they are quite pricey.

I personally would get a fast fixed focus lens and experiment with it a bit before buying any zooms. Test if the aperture compromise (since zooms usually have narrower apertures) is ok with you. The 50mm f/1.4 on a 40D would be good for portraits and general shooting.

Yes, I prefer fixed lenses over zooms always. Unfortunately, I have found that more often than not people feel constrained and disappointed with one fixed focal length on the camera.

I'd also personally go with a prime, possibly a fast one. I know I don't pair well with zooms. When I bought my Pentax K100D Super, I bought body only, and attached a 50/1.4 Pentax-M in front of it. I got it almost welded to the front of that Pentax.

Zoom lenses for me are more confusing. They take away -in my experience- two things: the careful thinking of the structure of the scene, and a fast aperture. While the former leads to a learning process that I enjoy, the latter is specifically technical. When I grab a zoom, I feel that I'm either not thinking the scene in depth or making myself too dependant on the adjustment of the focal length. And when I have the scene structure solved, then I'm cursing all over the lens for not beeing f/1.8 at least. I really can't cope with zooms. However, some people feel really bad with a fixed focal length lens, because it indeed forces for an exercise of thinking the scene previously to the shot, and it is truth that sometimes a given shot can't be taken with a given focal length, and perhaps a zoom with acceptable range would make it possible.

But well, I guess it depends on previous experience. My recommendation would also be a prime, but depends on the person who is behind the viewfinder. For me, primes, always.

If I could convince anyone the better is to go with a prime, I'd be happier in my purist side, and convinced that on the long run the reward is bigger for the photographer. But on the other side, I am aware that the commitment to learn that having one or two fixed lens with you brings, is hard to have when we consider those really good zoom lenses out on the market.

Now... back... Scrat, what kind of pictures will you be taking? With those two zooms (the 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4, and the 70-200 that xeliex recommended) you'll have covered an important range of focal lengths. Short of nature photography or architectural photography, you won't need anything else probably. Of course, those two lenses are expensive indeed. Personally, if I'd be buying a zoom -something which I hope I will not do hehe-, I'd go for the 24-70 or 24-105 and if I'm not close enough, walk. But again, if I'd be taking pictures of rhynos in Africa, I'd probably want a 300mm (at least) lens. It depends on the kind of photography you will be taking.

Cheers,
Sebas.