Thanks rusty bug that sounds like a very good idea.
But is it just me or does the whole 40d and those lenses that you mentioned alread cost about 2200?

+1 for the 40D

Just a note, the tamron is also a very good lens in my experience but for landscape shooting at smaller apertures the canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS (stabilised) is equal to it and a fair bit cheaper.

the f2.8 of the tamron is nice though and very very useable.

in adition to the sugestions others have given, I recommend also getting a canon EF 50/1.8 II. It can be had for $100 new and it makes a perfect low-light portrait lens on crop. It is also extremely sharp at f2.8-f8 on a crop camera (eg the 40D) and thus very suitable to shooting stitched landscape panoramas.

KyleR. wrote:
Usually i like autofocus just incase i need a fast shot, like when I'm shooting an action sport, but I'm not really sure if I need it.

For that, not only you need AF but you need a fast one. For that you need (a) Fast aperture, (b) Ring USM, (c) IF design. Take one out, especially b or c, and you're seriously compromising AF speed and accuracy.

Tamron lenses, 70-300 IS etc. are all very nice lenses by their own right but lack both b and c. Hence, they are far from being suitable for action (sport) shooting.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Ring USM is about noise, not speed. Some cameras, like the Sony A900, don't have USM in many of their lenses, yet focus blazingly fast.

Personally, I prefer to buy top of the line from a few years ago, than mid-grade new. keh has used 1D Classic w/ charger and battery for $400, spend another $100 on a new battery, that leaves you with $1500 for a 28-135mm you can probably score cheap on craigslist (5D kit lens) and a few primes.

Or, the Mk II is $819, 28-105mm and battery would bring you to $1200, maybe an 85 f1.8 and some version of the 70 or 75 -300m

KyleR. wrote:
OK so i think im gonna go with the cannnon.

NOw assuming that i have about 1000 to spend on a lens, what do you think is a good starting setup?



As this is the "Alternative Gear & Lenses" forum can I suggest going for cheap used lenses on ebay rather than splashing the cash on new ones?....$2000 can get you a very good condition used DSLR and possibly dozens of good condition, high quality, lenses.
Personally, I avoid zoom lenses as they are bigger, heavier and nearly always exibit poorer optically quality compared to smaller, lighter and sharper prime lenses.
As for DSLR's, if you want the best digital image quality available (in good light) then you need a Sigma DSLR with the Foveon X3 sensor, like the Sigma SD14 (or the new SD15, if and when it eventually hits the market), else every other DSLR on the market is pretty much a muchness...The only big differences between various DSLR's are the speed, sensor size and the image size each produce...The ones with bigger sensors dont necessarily produce the better quality images, but they will give you shallower DOF which can be very important for portrait work...Having more pixels also does'nt guarentee better image quality but having more pixels does give you a bigger image which can look sharper when reduced in size, say to be shown on an internet forum like this one, and it can also be an advantage when wanting to make very large prints.
You dont necessarily need to go get a Canon DSLR at all, as most DSLR's use the same fundimental sensor technology and therefore they all offer very similar image quality, irrespective of the brand, though its true that if you do decide to get a Canon DSLR that will give you the largest choice of lenses to use without having to modify lenses first, including Nikon, Leica R, Olympus OM, Canon FL/FD, Pentax K, M42 etc...Adapters are usually quite cheap and readily available.
Not all Canon DSLR's are so forgiving though, the Canon 5D MkII for instance, where you may have to perform a drastic mirror "shaving" job to allow some lenses to fit properly without the risk of hitting and potentially damaging the flip up mirror!
The latest Nikon DSLR's arguably offer better high ISO performance than the latest Canon DSLR's so if that is important to you then you might decide Nikon is the way to go but be aware you will be much more restricted on what lenses you can use compared to with a Canon DSLR. As far as I am aware Nikon mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Nikon mount and M42 mount lenses and similarly Pentax mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Pentax K mount and M42 mount lenses and Konica/Minolta mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Minolta MC/MD/MM mount lenses and possibly M42 lenses as well, but thats about it.
Sigma DSLR users can use SA mount lenses, Nikon mount lenses, Pentax K mount lenses, M42 mount lenses and Canon EF mount lenses that have been converted to SA mount (all functions work except IS).
Another option is a 4/3rds mount DSLR....They are small and light and as with Canon DSLR's, adapters for many different mount lenses are cheap and readily available...The biggest drawback is their tiny image sensor which makes it more difficult to obtain images with a shallow DOF, say for pro portrait work and aggressive noise cancelling algorithms have to be employed, in-camera, which can restrict low light/high ISO image quality.
There are other choices available but you only have a limited budget so I'll leave it up to you.

I was thinking aabout that too ian.
A couple questions.
Is the 1d technology very old that it is not even close to the new stuff?
And I think it will be more complicated than i need.
Whatd the differences between 30d, 40d, and 50d?

Alf Beharie wrote:
KyleR. wrote:
OK so i think im gonna go with the cannnon.

NOw assuming that i have about 1000 to spend on a lens, what do you think is a good starting setup?



As this is the "Alternative Gear & Lenses" forum can I suggest going for cheap used lenses on ebay rather than splashing the cash on new ones?....$2000 can get you a very good condition used DSLR and possibly dozens of good condition, high quality, lenses.
Personally, I avoid zoom lenses as they are bigger, heavier and nearly always exibit poorer optically quality compared to smaller, lighter and sharper prime lenses.
As for DSLR's, if you want the best digital image quality available (in good light) then you need a Sigma DSLR with the Foveon X3 sensor, like the Sigma SD14 (or the new SD15, if and when it eventually hits the market), else every other DSLR on the market is pretty much a muchness...The only big differences between various DSLR's are the speed, sensor size and the image size each produce...The ones with bigger sensors dont necessarily produce the better quality images, but they will give you shallower DOF which can be very important for portrait work...Having more pixels also does'nt guarentee better image quality but having more pixels does give you a bigger image which can look sharper when reduced in size, say to be shown on an internet forum like this one, and it can also be an advantage when wanting to make very large prints.
You dont necessarily need to go get a Canon DSLR at all, as most DSLR's use the same fundimental sensor technology and therefore they all offer very similar image quality, irrespective of the brand, though its true that if you do decide to get a Canon DSLR that will give you the largest choice of lenses to use without having to modify lenses first, including Nikon, Leica R, Olympus OM, Canon FL/FD, Pentax K, M42 etc...Adapters are usually quite cheap and readily available.
Not all Canon DSLR's are so forgiving though, the Canon 5D MkII for instance, where you may have to perform a drastic mirror "shaving" job to allow some lenses to fit properly without the risk of hitting and potentially damaging the flip up mirror!
The latest Nikon DSLR's arguably offer better high ISO performance than the latest Canon DSLR's so if that is important to you then you might decide Nikon is the way to go but be aware you will be much more restricted on what lenses you can use compared to with a Canon DSLR. As far as I am aware Nikon mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Nikon mount and M42 mount lenses and similarly Pentax mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Pentax K mount and M42 mount lenses and Konica/Minolta mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Minolta MC/MD/MM mount lenses and possibly M42 lenses as well, but thats about it.
Sigma DSLR users can use SA mount lenses, Nikon mount lenses, Pentax K mount lenses, M42 mount lenses and Canon EF mount lenses that have been converted to SA mount (all functions work except IS).
Another option is a 4/3rds mount DSLR....They are small and light and as with Canon DSLR's, adapters for many different mount lenses are cheap and readily available...The biggest drawback is their tiny image sensor which makes it more difficult to obtain images with a shallow DOF, say for pro portrait work and aggressive noise cancelling algorithms have to be employed, in-camera, which can restrict low light/high ISO image quality.
There are other choices available but you only have a limited budget so I'll leave it up to you.


Thanks Alf.
I was looking at the sigma and thinking about it cause it looks so esay to use and doesnt have all those modes except for the standard shutter priority, etc.
It also has an easy mirror lock up for sharper shots.
Anyways, what makes you think that sigmas are the best quality?
Also, I was thinking about buying my lenses used, but is that something that you guys do?
Won't they usually have scratches etc. over time?
I would like to spend around 500 on a body so then i could spend the rest on lenses?
Also, does this seem like too much for my second camera and lenses?
Right now i only use one lens and i feel like a lot of others could come in handy, but is it spoiled to start out with 3, 4 lenses?

Thanks,
Kyle

For versatility I'd say that the 1d series are just to big. I'd recommend looking for a used 5d for about 700, with a tamron 28-75/2.8, for sports a cheap (!) fisheye and for tele the great 70-200/4 IS. If budget allows, you could go for the sigma UWA 12/24. (I personally advise against the 15-30)

Alf Beharie wrote:
KyleR. wrote:
OK so i think im gonna go with the cannnon.

NOw assuming that i have about 1000 to spend on a lens, what do you think is a good starting setup?



As this is the "Alternative Gear & Lenses" forum can I suggest going for cheap used lenses on ebay rather than splashing the cash on new ones?....$2000 can get you a very good condition used DSLR and possibly dozens of good condition, high quality, lenses.
Personally, I avoid zoom lenses as they are bigger, heavier and nearly always exibit poorer optically quality compared to smaller, lighter and sharper prime lenses.
As for DSLR's, if you want the best digital image quality available (in good light) then you need a Sigma DSLR with the Foveon X3 sensor, like the Sigma SD14 (or the new SD15, if and when it eventually hits the market), else every other DSLR on the market is pretty much a muchness...The only big differences between various DSLR's are the speed, sensor size and the image size each produce...The ones with bigger sensors dont necessarily produce the better quality images, but they will give you shallower DOF which can be very important for portrait work...Having more pixels also does'nt guarentee better image quality but having more pixels does give you a bigger image which can look sharper when reduced in size, say to be shown on an internet forum like this one, and it can also be an advantage when wanting to make very large prints.
You dont necessarily need to go get a Canon DSLR at all, as most DSLR's use the same fundimental sensor technology and therefore they all offer very similar image quality, irrespective of the brand, though its true that if you do decide to get a Canon DSLR that will give you the largest choice of lenses to use without having to modify lenses first, including Nikon, Leica R, Olympus OM, Canon FL/FD, Pentax K, M42 etc...Adapters are usually quite cheap and readily available.
Not all Canon DSLR's are so forgiving though, the Canon 5D MkII for instance, where you may have to perform a drastic mirror "shaving" job to allow some lenses to fit properly without the risk of hitting and potentially damaging the flip up mirror!
The latest Nikon DSLR's arguably offer better high ISO performance than the latest Canon DSLR's so if that is important to you then you might decide Nikon is the way to go but be aware you will be much more restricted on what lenses you can use compared to with a Canon DSLR. As far as I am aware Nikon mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Nikon mount and M42 mount lenses and similarly Pentax mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Pentax K mount and M42 mount lenses and Konica/Minolta mount DSLR users are pretty much restricted to Minolta MC/MD/MM mount lenses and possibly M42 lenses as well, but thats about it.
Sigma DSLR users can use SA mount lenses, Nikon mount lenses, Pentax K mount lenses, M42 mount lenses and Canon EF mount lenses that have been converted to SA mount (all functions work except IS).
Another option is a 4/3rds mount DSLR....They are small and light and as with Canon DSLR's, adapters for many different mount lenses are cheap and readily available...The biggest drawback is their tiny image sensor which makes it more difficult to obtain images with a shallow DOF, say for pro portrait work and aggressive noise cancelling algorithms have to be employed, in-camera, which can restrict low light/high ISO image quality.
There are other choices available but you only have a limited budget so I'll leave it up to you.


Leitax goes a long way for alternative lenses on Pentax and Sony, and having IS in all your alt glass is a pretty sweet deal.

There are a lot of good recommendations and all the things I wanted to say have been said. I may have missed it, but do you want video? Because as of now only the D90, D5000, and T1i fall into that category.

Here are some used prices and the lens-
Canon
17-55 IS USM - ~850-900
24-105L IS USM - ~900-1000
28-105 USM - ~180
28-135 IS USM - ~230
50mm 1.8 - ~80
85mm 1.8 - ~340
70-300mm IS - ~430

Tamron
17-50 2.8 - ~350
28-75 2.8 - ~330

Sigma
50mm 1.4 - ~330

I'm missing some of the wide angles cuz I havent researched them much, but I know theres three good ones at the least (sigma, canon, tokina).

40D - ~620
50D - ~800
T1i - ~600

I dont know much about Nikon lenses and bodies but I have seen
D90 - ~680
D5000 - ~480-620, yeah this thing keeps jumping in price.

Cannon

Wait, 2nd body, what do you have already? That can change everything.

KyleR. wrote:

Thanks Alf.
I was looking at the sigma and thinking about it cause it looks so esay to use and doesnt have all those modes except for the standard shutter priority, etc.
It also has an easy mirror lock up for sharper shots.
Anyways, what makes you think that sigmas are the best quality?


You can see for yourself by pixel peeping...Just compare any full size shot from any other DSLR to one from a Sigma DSLR and it wont take you long to work out why.


Also, I was thinking about buying my lenses used, but is that something that you guys do?



The guys around here almost always use used lenses...After all whats the point of buying new when you can buy used lenses, offering the same and sometimes even better image quality as new ones but for a fraction of the price.


Won't they usually have scratches etc. over time?


Somtimes yes, but most of the time no.

KyleR. wrote:
I was thinking aabout that too ian.
A couple questions.
Is the 1d technology very old that it is not even close to the new stuff?
And I think it will be more complicated than i need.
Whatd the differences between 30d, 40d, and 50d?


My only complaint of the 1D classic is that you can't zoom in on the LCD to take a closer look at the images taken. Otherwise, it's miles ahead of any other non-1D body in terms of things like durability (full weather proofing) and focusing. It's ISO range isn't as high as some of the newer bodies, but that may or may not matter for you.

I had a 40d for a while, great camera. My understanding is that there isn't a big change in image quality from the 40d to 50d.

Ian

Dudewithoutape~ Wow thanks for all that good info!!
Alf Beharie~ OK so it seems like used gear is the way to go. It looks like I have some pixel peeping to do
ianpaterson~ I see, so maybe the 1-d classic would be a good camera. how does it compare to some of the newer (not that new, like 1dmk II i think) and the 40d?


It seems like for the body if a can get a type of d for a good price, that seems like the way to go.
As for lenses, it seems like i should get a prime, a wide angle, and a zoom lens to start.
If anybody has anymore recommendations for what lenses i should get I would be glad to hear them.

Thanks again for all this info!
K.R.

Kyle: I have a 1D Classic, 5D mk II, 350D and have had a 40D in the past. The 1D is the camera I like using the most, it's focusing speed and high fps are a dream. The 7D has the same 8fps, although the auto focus isn't nearly as good.

That having been said, when it comes down to image quality and mega pixels, I use the 5D Mk II. You could go for a 1Ds which is also full frame, 11 mega pixel for $889 at keh, but only 3 fps and ISO only up to 1250.

I'm not knocking the 1D classic, it's only 4 mega pixels but they are 4 *really good* mega pixels. You just need to be spot on exposure and crop, every time.

Everything's a trade off

ianpaaterson~ It seems like the 1d mk2 is perfect cause its just like the 1d classic but more megapixels(8) and theirs a better processor.
But does that stuff matter that much?

do you have any lens reccomendations?

Depends on what you want to do and what you have already. 24-70mm f2.8 is always good, 50mm f1.8 is super cheap and if you get a good copy it's great. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/831913/1#7745815 has some good recommendations. My tendency is to go with fast primes, but I started with a 70-200mm f2.8 IS

ok thanks.