New DSLR for beginner

[koffiejunkie]

Not a fan of them bundling the 55-250.

Why not? It is available without it. I'm not crazy about the 55-250mm but for the money it's perfectly adequate for someone starting out to get their feet wet.

Why? The 400D offered me everything I needed at the time at a price I could afford.

That's kind of what I mean. Choosing a body that offers you everything you need is not the same as "the best you can afford" as Naks wrote:

The rule of thumb is buy the best body you can afford now, don't worry too much about lenses.

I'm not advocating he blows all his budget on an expensive body but something like a 550D will offer a lot more than a second hand 400D and give him plenty of time to grow and see where photography takes him.

I agree - that's why I generally don't point people to anything more than the entry level bodies, except in a case like this where there is a D90 available for the same money as some lower-end bodies - that's just a good deal.

 

[bwana]

Why not? It is available without it. I'm not crazy about the 55-250mm but for the money it's perfectly adequate for someone starting out to get their feet wet.

It's not really adequate. It's slow, poorly made, and doesn't yield particularly great results.

That's kind of what I mean. Choosing a body that offers you everything you need is not the same as "the best you can afford" as Naks wrote:

I guess affordability is a bad indicator since people have varying degrees of disposable income. My point is not to buy the cheapest camera and expect it to still fulfil your needs after a couple of years.

I agree - that's why I generally don't point people to anything more than the entry level bodies, except in a case like this where there is a D90 available for the same money as some lower-end bodies - that's just a good deal.

So it's a do as I say not as I do (did)?

 

[koffiejunkie]

It's not really adequate. It's slow, poorly made, and doesn't yield particularly great results.

It's at least no worse than the Sigma 70-300mm APO that I had and that many of us recommended for someone looking in that price segment. I don't see how it's any different - the 55-250 is a very cheap lens. I've owned worse glass than that.

So it's a do as I say not as I do (did)?

My first body was a Pentax K100D? That was entry level at the time. And beside, my comment was in the context of newcomers to SLR photography. I was only new to digital.

 

[Dolby]

Hypothetical Question :

You're starting out and you have R30,000.00 - what would you get?

I'd think of a used 7D (R12,500.00) and used 70-200mm L 2.8 (R15,000.00). I also saw a Canon 1.4 Extender for R2,200.00 - so in total R29,200.00 and IMO I'd have some great kit.

The converter gives me a 448mm F4 when used - and the real 112mm at 2.8 is a decent focal length as well.

 

[bwana]

Hypothetical Question :

You're starting out and you have R30,000.00 - what would you get?

I'd think of a used 7D (R12,500.00) and used 70-200mm L 2.8 (R15,000.00). I also saw a Canon 1.4 Extender for R2,200.00 - so in total R29,200.00 and IMO I'd have some great kit.

The converter gives me a 448mm F4 when used - and the real 112mm at 2.8 is a decent focal length as well.

Easy - 600D (subject to availability) or 60D, 50mm f/1.4, Speedlite 270EXII. Then I'd save the rest until I knew what I needed.

I noticed you've got no short end in your setup.

 

[undesign]

Hypothetical Question :

You're starting out and you have R30,000.00 - what would you get?

I'd think of a used 7D (R12,500.00) and used 70-200mm L 2.8 (R15,000.00). I also saw a Canon 1.4 Extender for R2,200.00 - so in total R29,200.00 and IMO I'd have some great kit.

The converter gives me a 448mm F4 when used - and the real 112mm at 2.8 is a decent focal length as well.

I'd much rather go for a 7D + decent walk-around/always on lens like the 15-85 + the 55-250 (sorry Bwana, but this is a decent lens for the price and you can always sell it later and upgrade to the 70-200 if needed) + a short prime, either the 35 f2 or the 50 f1.8.

 

[bwana]

I'd much rather go for a 7D + decent walk-around/always on lens like the 15-85 + the 55-250 (sorry Bwana, but this is a decent lens for the price and you can always sell it later and upgrade to the 70-200 if needed) + a short prime, either the 35 f2 or the 50 f1.8.

What can I say. I've used it and I don't like it for the aforementioned reasons and considering how many they're throwing around in these kits the 2nd hand market is going to about as good as it is for a used 18-55. I'd sooner bite the bullet and get the 70-200 f/4 which does have a decent resale value.

 

[undesign]

What can I say. I've used it and I don't like it for the aforementioned reasons and considering how many they're throwing around in these kits the 2nd hand market is going to about as good as it is for a used 18-55. I'd sooner bite the bullet and get the 70-200 f/4 which does have a decent resale value.

True, but you will need a decent walk-around lens and the 70-200 won't cut it, it is way too long. I've never understood why someone would first buy an expensive long zoom - and skimp on the everyday lens, which is typically in the 15-70 range and will in all probability be used the most. It should be the other way around.

 

[Dolby]

True, but you will need a decent walk-around lens and the 70-200 won't cut it, it is way too long. I've never understood why someone would first buy an expensive long zoom - and skimp on the everyday lens, which is typically in the 15-70 range and will in all probability be used the most. It should be the other way around.

Needs perhaps?

I'd want to try my hand at photographing bands and go to Kruger fairly often.

 

[bwana]

True, but you will need a decent walk-around lens and the 70-200 won't cut it, it is way too long. I've never understood why someone would first buy an expensive long zoom - and skimp on the everyday lens, which is typically in the 15-70 range and will in all probability be used the most. It should be the other way around.

Many people starting off get the single kit lens included in the package (18-55 II IS) which negates the immediate need to buy another in that range so the 70-200 makes sense as a longer term investment.

Oddly enough I still use mine to this day even though I've got much better glass in my bag. My most used walk around lens though is a 50mm's - the most used overall is my 300mm.

 

[EchoZA]

I bought the 550D twin lense bundle... out of the two lense I use the 55-250mm the most but... tomorrow is pay day so I'm going to look at some prime lenses

 

[undesign]

Needs perhaps?

I'd want to try my hand at photographing bands and go to Kruger fairly often.

Many people starting off get the single kit lens included in the package (18-55 II IS) which negates the immediate need to buy another in that range so the 70-200 makes sense as a longer term investment.

Oddly enough I still use mine to this day even though I've got much better glass in my bag. My most used walk around lens though is a 50mm's - the most used overall is my 300mm.

Absolutely, if need dictates a longer lens then it makes completely sense. I do think that once most hobbyist photographers get over the "must zoom everything to maximum" stage that it makes more sense to spend money on the "normal" everyday focal range.

Anyway, Bwana, I'm still going to convince you that the 50-250 is a value proposition comparable to the 50 1.8 (with auto focus that actually works...).

 

[koffiejunkie]

...the 50-250 is a value proposition comparable to the 50 1.8 (with auto focus that actually works...).

The AF on the 55-250mm is no less terrible than on the 50mm f/1.8....

 

[bwana]

Anyway, Bwana, I'm still going to convince you that the 50-250 is a value proposition comparable to the 50 1.8 (with auto focus that actually works...).

You would have had much better luck before I'd actually used it.

 

[koffiejunkie]

You would have had much better luck before I'd actually used it.

I don't think there are many consumer lenses, especially in that price bracket, you'll find acceptible, let alone satisfying, once you're used to a 70-200mm f/4 L USM...

 

[undesign]

The AF on the 55-250mm is no less terrible than on the 50mm f/1.8....

Not in my experience, but then again I've long suspected my Nifty Fifty is a bit of a dud.

I don't think there are many consumer lenses, especially in that price bracket, you'll find acceptible, let alone satisfying, once you're used to a 70-200mm f/4 L USM...

Exactly...

 

[Quantum Theory]

My 8-16mm, 35mm and D90 body are still making me smile... Who needs anything else?

To be honest, I do need a 16-85mm lens soon. But a good telephoto is definitely last on the list and would probably be wasted on me, so I might as well get a cheap one.

 

[DylanS]

Canon EOS 60D with 17-85mm IS Lens Kit
Canon EF 100 mm f 2.8 USM MACRO
Canon EF 70 - 200 mm f 2.8 L USM
Lowepro Pro Runner 200 AW Black

Thats what I would spend my 30K on

 

[Dolby]

Canon EOS 60D with 17-85mm IS Lens Kit
Canon EF 100 mm f 2.8 USM MACRO
Canon EF 70 - 200 mm f 2.8 L USM
Lowepro Pro Runner 200 AW Black

Thats what I would spend my 30K on

Isn't that 70-200mm f 2.8 L R20,000.00 alone?

 

[DylanS]

Isn't that 70-200mm f 2.8 L R20,000.00 alone?

No
The 70-200mm f 2.8 L IS USM II is R20K
The 70-200mm f 2.8 L USM is more like R12k