Canon 550D Vs Nikon D5000

I dont have a budget really till now but will not be spending 10's of thousands on a lens either.

I must be honest I am as noob as you will get on cameras, but I want something that I can get into and the camera would last me at least a few years still.

What would be a nice starter lens for the canon on a budget or bang for your buck idea? (As a previous post says it one of the most question to be asked)
I would like to take some decent lessons on using the camera (not for commercial use but to take better pictures for myself) but till now it will be for private use.

I agree first buyers dont really think about getting decent lenses and are very happy or just ignorant of looking for better lenses.
I realise that you will have to get lenses for the camera, but I also think alot of beginners buy the camera and hope and think that the stock camera must or will be all they need.

I do appreciate all the info really.
 
Last edited:
Either of the cameras will last you a few years. Bwana still shoots with a 400D and some still shoot with 350Ds. What WILL last you more than a decade is decent lenses. But as always, reality check, a beginner will not fork out 10s of thousands on lenses.

As mentioned in this and other threads, from a canon perspective, after the 18-55 kit and the 50mm 1.8 - the next lens that beginners want is a 200mm+ zoom lens. My recommendation in this area is the 70-300mm IS.
 
SubliminalThought said:
As mentioned in this and other threads, from a canon perspective, after the 18-55 kit and the 50mm 1.8 - the next lens that beginners want is a 200mm+ zoom lens. My recommendation in this area is the 70-300mm IS.
Click to expand...

@Acid0 - take everything I say with a pinch of salt, I'm also new to SLR's. :)

BUT, I'm going through the same process as you atm. My thought process is roughly as follows -

1) currently using the 50 1.8 prime the most great lens (will later upgrade to wider though)

2) haven't used the 18-55 kit lens much, but obviously it needs a decent telephoto/zoom compliment lens. I've looked at the 55-250 and the 70-300. The 55-250, at half the price, seems to be very good value for money and also something you could consider - see forum posts about it here. It is of course EF-S, but that doesn't bother me too much.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00OI7h

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=477297 (this site, BTW, has an amazing amount of info on practically any question you have)

I change my mind every 5 minutes, but I'm currently also thinking of changing the 18-55 to a 18-125 or even 17-85 - the kit lens, for me, is just too short to use for a "walk around" always on lens.
 
Last edited:
I use an old 20d which is about 4 or 5 years old now and if it weren't for me it would take AWESOME pictures. :p It came with a 17-85 IS USM as the kit lens. Only in the last year have I really started to get into photography and decided to renew some of my kit. First I got the 50mm 1,4. VERY nice lens. I never knew how fuzzy and out of focus all my other pictures had been. I always put it down to the old CMOS in the 20d. Boy was I wrong. The 50mm started the "Lens Lust". I tried the 24-70 L f/2,8 but found it just too short so I swapped it for the 24-105 L IS USM. WOW! The old 20d has a lot of life in her still. I would still like to get a 7d but I think some more quality, fast glass will be gotten first. Next on my list of "must haves" is the 70-200 IS USM II and maybe a 1,4 extender and some macro tubes. Just need to get it past the bank manager (read wife) first.

The 24-105 f/4 L IS is probably the best walkabout lens on the market IMO. Even on a crop sensor it's great. If I need a really wide angle I just take 4 or 8 shots and stitch them together. Wide angle covered. But you do need a good zoom. I borrowed the 70-300 IS from a friend and was really impressed for the price it's a great lens. Less than 1/3rd the price of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and still less than half the 70-200 f/4 IS. AND it has 100mm extra to play with. It's not in the same class as these two lenses when it comes to IQ but who really has R20k to blow on their hobby???
 
Last edited:
SiriS said:
*sigh* three weeks into a new camera and I already suffer from it :cry:
Click to expand...
Welcome to photographer hell!!! So many lenses so little money.
SiriS said:
Looks like a great lens, but expensive! :eek:
Click to expand...
It is a LOT of moola but it's a lot of lens. I used to think the 18-55 was good and the 17-85 was great. Now I have been re-educated. I still have some great shots from the 17-85 but nothing in comparison to the 24-105. It could also be that I am getting better as a photographer, but I doubt that. Certainly not that much improved.

Koffie did a comparison of 3 "superzooms" in one of the threads on here. Very good read if you are in the market.
 
MadMailMan said:
Welcome to photographer hell!!! So many lenses so little money.

It is a LOT of moola but it's a lot of lens. I used to think the 18-55 was good and the 17-85 was great. Now I have been re-educated. I still have some great shots from the 17-85 but nothing in comparison to the 24-105. It could also be that I am getting better as a photographer, but I doubt that. Certainly not that much improved.
Click to expand...

That one will go on the back-burner for now - I'm not ready yet to pay more for a lens than the camera. :p

Koffie did a comparison of 3 "superzooms" in one of the threads on here. Very good read if you are in the market.
Click to expand...

Thanks, nice link.
 
Don't forget a flash. . .
 
Sure beats having to use the popup :)
 
SubliminalThought said:
200mm+ zoom lens. My recommendation in this area is the 70-300mm IS.
Click to expand...

In terms of magnification, are all 300mm the same?

In other words, my P&S says 20x optical and (520mm equivilant in 35mm standards). If I wanted the same magnification if and when I get a DSLR, would I need to go 500mm lens?

Or does the larger sensor mean I can go smaller on the 'mm' side of things - like the 300mm would give me the same?

* I know I should read up on focal lengths and stuff - just haven't got around to it ...
 
An aps-c sensor will give you a magnification of either 1.5 or 1.6 times (nikon vs canon) the focal length of the lens.
 
bwana said:
An aps-c sensor will give you a magnification of either 1.5 or 1.6 times (nikon vs canon) the focal length of the lens.
Click to expand...

ok ok ... I'll go read up on aps-c and focal lengths ;)
 
Dolby said:
ok ok ... I'll go read up on aps-c and focal lengths ;)
Click to expand...

What bwana is saying is that with non full-frame ("professional") DSLRs - consumer/prosumer DSLRs - there is always a magnification ratio no matter which lens is attached. With Nikon it's 1.5x and Canon is 1.6x (Nikons see more than Canons). http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm

So for 500mm zoom on a Nikon body, you would need a 333.3mm lens (333.3 x 1.5 = 499.95mm).

The 333.3mm lens would be 333.3mm on a full-frame body because there is no crop factor on full-frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X