Help with SLR/Lens choice
Discussion
Having done quite a bit of research on dpreview and photozone.de etc I am pulling my hair out over which SLR and lens/lenses to buy.
I am new to SLRs but have done a fair bit of underwater photography with a Canon G9 (I don't intend using the SLR underwater).
I would prefer to buy something better than the EOS450/500/550 range as these feel plasticy and I figure getting searching out a cracking deal on something better, new or second hand, is a better idea.
So, I've narrowed my search to Canon 40D or 50D (second hand or refurb) or Nikon D90 (new but a great deal equivalent to £630 with the 18-110 kit lens).
One plan is to buy the Nikon, get used to it a bit then supplement it with say a super wide angle aftermarket lens (Tokina 11-16 or similar) and possibly a zoom in due course or sell the kit lens (they go for about £150) and buy some better glass to start with.
The other (and similarly if I buy the Nikon and sell the kit lens) is to buy a Canon 40D or 50D (don't really care which) then buy a lens or lenses. One option is the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens as a main lens followed by a Tokina 11-16 or similar and then maybe a longer zoom in due course. However this option is more costly than the Nikon kit option initially due to the price of the 17-55 lens (about £550-£650 second hand).
So, what should I do? Would the fantastic Canon lens I mention make a massive difference? Would it be flexible enough for most situations? (I envisage doing mostly landscapes, buildings, travel photography and some of people though enjoy macro underwater so might get into this I suppose) or am I better starting out with a decent general lens like supplied with the Nikon and going on from there?
I realise the Canon D40 or D50 plus high quality main lens (or Nikon and replacing the kit lens with a high quality Nikon main lens) would be more outlay but I'm guessing if I buy good second hand examples they will always be in demand and shouldn't depreciate as much.
I'd like to decide on which way to go by the end of tomorrow (or tonight!) as I fly to Germany on Friday and may be able to implement either in time to take a camera with me.
Thanks
Dan
I am new to SLRs but have done a fair bit of underwater photography with a Canon G9 (I don't intend using the SLR underwater).
I would prefer to buy something better than the EOS450/500/550 range as these feel plasticy and I figure getting searching out a cracking deal on something better, new or second hand, is a better idea.
So, I've narrowed my search to Canon 40D or 50D (second hand or refurb) or Nikon D90 (new but a great deal equivalent to £630 with the 18-110 kit lens).
One plan is to buy the Nikon, get used to it a bit then supplement it with say a super wide angle aftermarket lens (Tokina 11-16 or similar) and possibly a zoom in due course or sell the kit lens (they go for about £150) and buy some better glass to start with.
The other (and similarly if I buy the Nikon and sell the kit lens) is to buy a Canon 40D or 50D (don't really care which) then buy a lens or lenses. One option is the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens as a main lens followed by a Tokina 11-16 or similar and then maybe a longer zoom in due course. However this option is more costly than the Nikon kit option initially due to the price of the 17-55 lens (about £550-£650 second hand).
So, what should I do? Would the fantastic Canon lens I mention make a massive difference? Would it be flexible enough for most situations? (I envisage doing mostly landscapes, buildings, travel photography and some of people though enjoy macro underwater so might get into this I suppose) or am I better starting out with a decent general lens like supplied with the Nikon and going on from there?
I realise the Canon D40 or D50 plus high quality main lens (or Nikon and replacing the kit lens with a high quality Nikon main lens) would be more outlay but I'm guessing if I buy good second hand examples they will always be in demand and shouldn't depreciate as much.
I'd like to decide on which way to go by the end of tomorrow (or tonight!) as I fly to Germany on Friday and may be able to implement either in time to take a camera with me.
Thanks
Dan
In short the D90 and a 18-105 kit lens. I had a D80 and shot over 20k pictures and was very pleased with it. The 18-105 is also a surprisingly good lens and perfect for a walkabout everything lens. After using the pair for a good while see which direction you want to go. Run out of telephoto? Motorsport etc - get a 70-300mm VR (top lens) or want wider angle? Landscape etc - 10-20mm Sigma (again a very good lens). Although, I had the latter and got fed up with the extreme perspective and sold it. I haven't tried it but I suspect the Nikon 14-24mm is a better range - at a cost...
As I see you're based in Manchester pop into Calumet take this post and talk to them. They will help and demo each option and price match too. I use them a lot and they know what they're doing / selling.
As I see you're based in Manchester pop into Calumet take this post and talk to them. They will help and demo each option and price match too. I use them a lot and they know what they're doing / selling.
Edited by ian in lancs on Wednesday 24th March 06:55
Thanks Ian, I'll stop hijacking the other thread now. I'll look up Calumet as I hadn't heard of them though it's probably unlikely they'll price match the deal I've found. I guess regarding the Canon, I've been tempted by a possible deal of a second hand 40D with 1,000 actuations with a 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens and hood and a few other bits which although a little more expensive, seems a good deal. One of the reasons I'm getting an SLR is to improve my general photographic skill which should help with my underwater photography. Do you think sticking to Canon as I use a G9 underwater should influence my choice much if at all? (due to familiar menus etc). The only other thing regarding Nikon vs Canon is a question of availability of second hand lenses - should this be a concern? (part of me thinks the greater availability of Canon is offset by higher demand).
Thanks
Dan
Thanks
Dan
Bodies are disposable to an extent. Glass will last you a lifetime if looked after well. Spend most of your budget on decent glass to start with (buy cheap buy twice etc)
Go into a shop and buy whatever body feels most natural for you to use. It doesn't really matter what name is on the front.
Go into a shop and buy whatever body feels most natural for you to use. It doesn't really matter what name is on the front.
You see this was what was making me swing towards the Canon 40D and very high quality 17-55 f2.8 lens. That said, I could probably buy the D90, sell the lens and buy a scond hand Nikon 17-55 f2.8 for around the same price. As for the feel of them, I like both. The Nikon is slightly smaller and lighter but the Canon is probably better protected against weather. Do you think if I went for the Canon I would regret it due to the less flexible lens or more likely think wow about the quality and be chuffed to bits? (Neither lens will do on its own forever afterall)
I have the equivalent Nikon 17-55 2.8 and it's a very versatile lens indeed. I don't miss the extra reach of the 24-70 2.8, but am glad of the extra wide angle range. I can go out all day and only take the 17-55 with me, depending where I'm going and what I'll be shooting. Your mileage may vary of course. I'm also lucky enough to own the 70-200 2.8 VR and that takes care of all my telephoto duties.
You won't go wrong with any of the L series from Canon or the high end Nikkors really, especially well-looked after second hand examples.
ETA - these are the lenses I have bought and sold to get where I am now. It's cost me a lot of money in trial/error
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10...
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/12...
http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-70200mm-f2...
Still own, but don't use very often:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nik...
You won't go wrong with any of the L series from Canon or the high end Nikkors really, especially well-looked after second hand examples.
ETA - these are the lenses I have bought and sold to get where I am now. It's cost me a lot of money in trial/error
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10...
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/12...
http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-70200mm-f2...
Still own, but don't use very often:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nik...
Edited by itsnotarace on Wednesday 24th March 09:31
Edited by itsnotarace on Wednesday 24th March 09:34
I'd ditch the canon 17-55 for a tamron 17-50 2.8 half the price almost the same performance 
2nd hand I found one for £205 new they're around £350
Body choice isn't really a big factor as people make out apart from pixels and higher iso performance a 40d is probally all you'll need at an amature level.
2nd hand I found one for £205 new they're around £350 Body choice isn't really a big factor as people make out apart from pixels and higher iso performance a 40d is probally all you'll need at an amature level.
Edited by petrolsniffer on Wednesday 24th March 09:32
itsnotarace said:
I have the equivalent Nikon 17-55 2.8 and it's a very versatile lens indeed. I don't miss the extra reach of the 24-70 2.8, but am glad of the extra wide angle range.
Agreed, it's my default wedding lens. However I'm not sure if it's wise for the OP to be lashing out £1,000 on a lens at this stage. Expensive lenses won't make you a better photographer and there may well be other factors limiting you at first, not the glass. I'd say go for an 18-70 or 18-135 lens for starters, and see how it goes. When the lens becomes the limiting factor, then that's the time to sell it on eBay (lenses fetch good money) and upgrade.petrolsniffer said:
I'd ditch the canon 17-55 for a tamron 17-50 2.8 half the price almost the same performance 2nd hand I found one for £205 new they're around £350
Body choice isn't really a big factor as people make out apart from pixels and higher iso performance a 40d is probally all you'll need at an amature level.
2nd hand I found one for £205 new they're around £350 Body choice isn't really a big factor as people make out apart from pixels and higher iso performance a 40d is probally all you'll need at an amature level.
Sharpest lens I've found this side of L-series glass. Been very impressed with it, even if it feels a little flimsy at times.
40D vs 50D - by all accounts the 50D is very expensive for what you get, and you're better of stretching to a 7D or a 5DMkII, or saving money and going for a 40D.
Depending on budget, my 2p would be:-
1) 40D + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to start with.
2) Add a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS or a 70-200L f/4 IS (if money permits)
3) When budget permits, get a 24-105L f/4 IS and then a truly wide-angle (e.g. 10-22), and ditch the Tamron.
Interesting - it would appear the advice is split just like my mind!
I have considered the decent body and second hand Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma route and might go that way. It is just tempting to be offered a very good camera with low actuations combined with a fantastic lens that's not had much use at about 60% of new price - still expensive but likely to depreciate very little. It's reassuring to hear that this lens makes a good default lens for want of a better word. If this lens is the one that is likely to get most used, it would be good for it to be great then supplement it with cheaper (but still good) other lenses in due course.
I could of course go for the D90, use the kit lens for a short while then buy a decent f2.8 17-55 Nikon and this would probably work out about the same price overall. In this case it really boils down to which is best - used Canon EOS40D or new Nikon D90. Any thoughts on this? (I know the technical differences).
(I hadn't read the last post before posting the above. Interesting re the 24-105 as I wasn't sure about the 24 starting point for a cropped sensor camera. I do have another potential on a D40 (about 10K actuations) a 10-22 Canon and 24-70 F2.8 L series but thought this is probably a bit daft for a beginner).
I have considered the decent body and second hand Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma route and might go that way. It is just tempting to be offered a very good camera with low actuations combined with a fantastic lens that's not had much use at about 60% of new price - still expensive but likely to depreciate very little. It's reassuring to hear that this lens makes a good default lens for want of a better word. If this lens is the one that is likely to get most used, it would be good for it to be great then supplement it with cheaper (but still good) other lenses in due course.
I could of course go for the D90, use the kit lens for a short while then buy a decent f2.8 17-55 Nikon and this would probably work out about the same price overall. In this case it really boils down to which is best - used Canon EOS40D or new Nikon D90. Any thoughts on this? (I know the technical differences).
(I hadn't read the last post before posting the above. Interesting re the 24-105 as I wasn't sure about the 24 starting point for a cropped sensor camera. I do have another potential on a D40 (about 10K actuations) a 10-22 Canon and 24-70 F2.8 L series but thought this is probably a bit daft for a beginner).
Edited by dan1502 on Wednesday 24th March 10:34
Ok so I have now narrowed my choice to two options - which would you go for?
Brand new Nikon D90 with 18-105 kit lens plus spare battery and remote for £680 after cashback (which is cheaper than a respected retailer can buy them).
Plus second hand 17-55 f2.8 Nikon lens at about £575 second hand (non VR/IS). Total therefore £1,255 (but I could sell the lens for about £150).
or
Second hand, well cared for 1100 actuation Canon EOS 40D plus battery grip and a couple of spare batteries plus Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS lens. I've been offered this for £1,200 but lets say I haggle to around £1,100 - £1,150.
I like both cameras and probably the like the size and feel of the Nikon slightly more (but little in it) but am aware that the Canon 17-55 IS lens not only has IS but is rated exceptionally well (albeit that the Nikon lens is not too shabby either but is non VR).
Given the advice that lenses are more important, is the Canon the better bet or not? I need to make a decision on this tomorrow morning really so help appreciated.
Brand new Nikon D90 with 18-105 kit lens plus spare battery and remote for £680 after cashback (which is cheaper than a respected retailer can buy them).
Plus second hand 17-55 f2.8 Nikon lens at about £575 second hand (non VR/IS). Total therefore £1,255 (but I could sell the lens for about £150).
or
Second hand, well cared for 1100 actuation Canon EOS 40D plus battery grip and a couple of spare batteries plus Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS lens. I've been offered this for £1,200 but lets say I haggle to around £1,100 - £1,150.
I like both cameras and probably the like the size and feel of the Nikon slightly more (but little in it) but am aware that the Canon 17-55 IS lens not only has IS but is rated exceptionally well (albeit that the Nikon lens is not too shabby either but is non VR).
Given the advice that lenses are more important, is the Canon the better bet or not? I need to make a decision on this tomorrow morning really so help appreciated.
I notice that you don't really say what you particularly want to take pictures of unless i missed it somewhere.
You haven't really mentioned a telephoto zoom so i take it you are not after that length at the moment. Mainly a walkabout lens.
I have just ordered a 2nd hand 40D for £450 with a 6 month guarantee. £400-£450 seems about right for a 40D dependant on condition and of course a 2nd hand body will most likely be over a year old by now so no cover for faults. The 50d doesn't really seem to offer a lot extra for my needs so its not really worth £120+ extra.
When i checked the price comparison website it listed the lens you mentioned as being an EFS? do you ever plan on getting a 5D full frame camera? I prefer to stick with EF lenses just incase i want to change in the future making them more compatible. You might not want the hassle of changing all your lenses if you change camera.
That ties in with buying lenses for a long time compared to buying bodies only when your current one wears out or you need a feature your current model can't provide.
I'm only upgrading my 350d as i have missed a number of action shots where the camera has filled its buffer and thus i've missed the best action shots, the 40d should do around 5 or so frames per second for about 17 frames which should be a great upgrade over the 350d's 5-6 frames at around 3 frames a second.
Some people don't like the small size or that its made of plastic, but i like the small size and light weight with a 70-200mm F4L on for a day at the hill climb and i was happy with the results. The difference between the L zoom and the cheap sigma i had before is the increased detail in the pictures and the faster AF, but then the current new price makes it about 5 times the cost of the sigma lens and 100mm shorter at the long end, nice if you can afford it, but it can be a bit of a stretch when you add in another couple of L lenses to buy in one go at possibly £1k+ each , hence why alot of hobbyists buy nice lenses over time as their interests change/some unexpected or saved funds come in and then keep them for a long time/until they realise they dont use them and sell them to cover another they would get more use out of.
You have to remember that a couple of years ago before the recession and the currency change for the worse for the uk alot of lenses etc were cheaper.
E.G. Lowest Price History
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM Lowest Price History Graph
Lowest Price History Price When
Current Lowest Price: £499.00 24/03/2010
Best Lowest Price: £379.00 19/10/2008
Worst Lowest Price: £529.99
Currently £500 was £380, that's a huge mark up in price, if you purchased at £380 if the lens is in good condition still you could probably sell it at a profit even after 2 years use. A lot of 40D's were sold with cash back as well making them around £550 after rebate iirc, making them a cheap upgrade at the time and a small loss selling them now.
Another thing to think of is that good lenses hold there money pretty well (especially of you buy 33% below the current rate (my 70-200 was £340 would have been £310 if i remembered to do the cash back in time, now its £470 from the same seller iirc) ) whereas most bodys are losing a fair bit as they are replaced every 18 months or so, lenses don't become obsolete in the same way.
The lens is Lowest Price History
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM Lowest Price History Graph
Lowest Price History Price When
Current Lowest Price: £769.00 24/03/2010
Best Lowest Price: £589.00 21/08/2007
Worst Lowest Price: £789.99 29/04/2009
So + £450 for a 40D another £15 for a couple of non canon batteries. A grip would be extra if you feel you need one, but you could get a new lens / 2nd hand lens of a longer range eg the 24-70L you mention.
E.G. this combo
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
Together £1249.98 slightly more reach on the lens but i haven't read reviews of either so you would need to check they are suitable for your use.
[quote]All of our used photographic equipment comes with a 6 month warranty and all new items come with manufacturer's warranty
[/quote] so should have a bit of cover as well. Worth checking out.
You haven't really mentioned a telephoto zoom so i take it you are not after that length at the moment. Mainly a walkabout lens.
I have just ordered a 2nd hand 40D for £450 with a 6 month guarantee. £400-£450 seems about right for a 40D dependant on condition and of course a 2nd hand body will most likely be over a year old by now so no cover for faults. The 50d doesn't really seem to offer a lot extra for my needs so its not really worth £120+ extra.
When i checked the price comparison website it listed the lens you mentioned as being an EFS? do you ever plan on getting a 5D full frame camera? I prefer to stick with EF lenses just incase i want to change in the future making them more compatible. You might not want the hassle of changing all your lenses if you change camera.
That ties in with buying lenses for a long time compared to buying bodies only when your current one wears out or you need a feature your current model can't provide.
I'm only upgrading my 350d as i have missed a number of action shots where the camera has filled its buffer and thus i've missed the best action shots, the 40d should do around 5 or so frames per second for about 17 frames which should be a great upgrade over the 350d's 5-6 frames at around 3 frames a second.
Some people don't like the small size or that its made of plastic, but i like the small size and light weight with a 70-200mm F4L on for a day at the hill climb and i was happy with the results. The difference between the L zoom and the cheap sigma i had before is the increased detail in the pictures and the faster AF, but then the current new price makes it about 5 times the cost of the sigma lens and 100mm shorter at the long end, nice if you can afford it, but it can be a bit of a stretch when you add in another couple of L lenses to buy in one go at possibly £1k+ each , hence why alot of hobbyists buy nice lenses over time as their interests change/some unexpected or saved funds come in and then keep them for a long time/until they realise they dont use them and sell them to cover another they would get more use out of.
You have to remember that a couple of years ago before the recession and the currency change for the worse for the uk alot of lenses etc were cheaper.
E.G. Lowest Price History
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM Lowest Price History Graph
Lowest Price History Price When
Current Lowest Price: £499.00 24/03/2010
Best Lowest Price: £379.00 19/10/2008
Worst Lowest Price: £529.99
Currently £500 was £380, that's a huge mark up in price, if you purchased at £380 if the lens is in good condition still you could probably sell it at a profit even after 2 years use. A lot of 40D's were sold with cash back as well making them around £550 after rebate iirc, making them a cheap upgrade at the time and a small loss selling them now.
Another thing to think of is that good lenses hold there money pretty well (especially of you buy 33% below the current rate (my 70-200 was £340 would have been £310 if i remembered to do the cash back in time, now its £470 from the same seller iirc) ) whereas most bodys are losing a fair bit as they are replaced every 18 months or so, lenses don't become obsolete in the same way.
The lens is Lowest Price History
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM Lowest Price History Graph
Lowest Price History Price When
Current Lowest Price: £769.00 24/03/2010
Best Lowest Price: £589.00 21/08/2007
Worst Lowest Price: £789.99 29/04/2009
So + £450 for a 40D another £15 for a couple of non canon batteries. A grip would be extra if you feel you need one, but you could get a new lens / 2nd hand lens of a longer range eg the 24-70L you mention.
E.G. this combo
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
Together £1249.98 slightly more reach on the lens but i haven't read reviews of either so you would need to check they are suitable for your use.
[quote]All of our used photographic equipment comes with a 6 month warranty and all new items come with manufacturer's warranty
[/quote] so should have a bit of cover as well. Worth checking out.
I paid the extra for the canon 17-55f2.8 IS , the tamron is built poorly and focuses slowly(and noisily) & at the time the VC one wasnt out.
It is now and its poorer than the non VC.
As for optical quality the tamron is great, better wide open at the wide end rather than the long end, I tend to use it the other way (stopped down at the wide end, open at the long end).
Which is why I went for the canon, hasnt let me down, pin sharp everywhere at f2.8, amazing lens, only downside is not prime quality bokeh.
40D, 50D both great cameras, so is the D90 tho. Both companies have some cracking lenses to choose from too.
It is now and its poorer than the non VC.
As for optical quality the tamron is great, better wide open at the wide end rather than the long end, I tend to use it the other way (stopped down at the wide end, open at the long end).
Which is why I went for the canon, hasnt let me down, pin sharp everywhere at f2.8, amazing lens, only downside is not prime quality bokeh.
40D, 50D both great cameras, so is the D90 tho. Both companies have some cracking lenses to choose from too.
Ok, so on the plus side for the Nikon is that it's new, I get an extra lens which I can keep and see how I go or sell immediately and the Nikon has some advantages over the EOS 40D but nothing particularly important. On the negative side, the Nikon 17-55 2.8 isn't as well reviewed as the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. I can't see me going full frame for a long time and even if I do, unless the cropped sensors become obsolete, a second hand lens should fetch a good price when sold on and I do look after my gear.
On the plus side for the Canon is that lens, I have an offer of one which I have a good feeling about having been chatting with the owner at length and it has a faster burst rate (which I don't see me needing immediately but you never know).
Ultimately I may buy an ultra wide lens, a macro lens and a telephoto zoom (say 70-200). Both Canon and Nikon have great telephotos (at a price) so not much to choose from here.
The reason I like the idea of a 17-55 2.8 is that it's equivalent to about 24-70 and a good walkabout lens which, due to the aperture, I should be able to experiment with depth of field effects. I've heard nothing but great reviews about the Canon 17-55 so although I like the idea of a new Nikon and for some reason that I can't explain am drawn to the Nikon (as well as having found a great deal) I wonder whether I ought to be letting the Canon lens drive my decision as lenses are more important (right?).
I figure a second hand well looked after 40D is around £400-425 and probably £425 or so if warrantied. The one I am thinking about has no warranty but has been looked after and has only 1100 actuations. The lens also comes with the hood. I'm guessing the lens is worth £550 - £600. I don't really need the battery grip etc but I guess I could either say so or sell them on. That's why I think for the package £1,000 - £1,100 is a fair deal.
But, if you think the difference between the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 non-VR will be marginal (how important is IS/VR?) then I might prefer the Nikon.
I'm not keen on a 24-70 as although a well reviewed lens, I'm not so keen on the range on a cropped sensor camera.
I suppose I'm at the point where either choice would be good and I'm being indecisive. I just don't want to regret my choice. The very helpful assistance at Calumet said she prefers Nikon but admitted she's biased. The guy at the second hand camera shop said that older Nikons weren't as good but the newer ones are. (He also suggested a 30D - but I'm not going to go there at this late stage).
So, what should I do?
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-1...
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
On the plus side for the Canon is that lens, I have an offer of one which I have a good feeling about having been chatting with the owner at length and it has a faster burst rate (which I don't see me needing immediately but you never know).
Ultimately I may buy an ultra wide lens, a macro lens and a telephoto zoom (say 70-200). Both Canon and Nikon have great telephotos (at a price) so not much to choose from here.
The reason I like the idea of a 17-55 2.8 is that it's equivalent to about 24-70 and a good walkabout lens which, due to the aperture, I should be able to experiment with depth of field effects. I've heard nothing but great reviews about the Canon 17-55 so although I like the idea of a new Nikon and for some reason that I can't explain am drawn to the Nikon (as well as having found a great deal) I wonder whether I ought to be letting the Canon lens drive my decision as lenses are more important (right?).
I figure a second hand well looked after 40D is around £400-425 and probably £425 or so if warrantied. The one I am thinking about has no warranty but has been looked after and has only 1100 actuations. The lens also comes with the hood. I'm guessing the lens is worth £550 - £600. I don't really need the battery grip etc but I guess I could either say so or sell them on. That's why I think for the package £1,000 - £1,100 is a fair deal.
But, if you think the difference between the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 non-VR will be marginal (how important is IS/VR?) then I might prefer the Nikon.
I'm not keen on a 24-70 as although a well reviewed lens, I'm not so keen on the range on a cropped sensor camera.
I suppose I'm at the point where either choice would be good and I'm being indecisive. I just don't want to regret my choice. The very helpful assistance at Calumet said she prefers Nikon but admitted she's biased. The guy at the second hand camera shop said that older Nikons weren't as good but the newer ones are. (He also suggested a 30D - but I'm not going to go there at this late stage).
So, what should I do?
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-1...
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
Edited by dan1502 on Thursday 25th March 08:59
30D is a lot old sensor wise (20d/350d sensor) apart from that its a decent all round body.
Havnt ever used (or seen) the nikon 17-55f2.8, horrendous price here ( more than a canon 24-70!) that could explain it, havnt even heard much about it. Nikons lenses do tend to be pricey but canon seem to be doing their best to match them too
A 40D does everything well, IMO one of canons best efforts in a long time ( perfomance/price) it damned near done everything the D300 did at half the price.
Havnt ever used (or seen) the nikon 17-55f2.8, horrendous price here ( more than a canon 24-70!) that could explain it, havnt even heard much about it. Nikons lenses do tend to be pricey but canon seem to be doing their best to match them too
A 40D does everything well, IMO one of canons best efforts in a long time ( perfomance/price) it damned near done everything the D300 did at half the price.
dan1502 said:
But, if you think the difference between the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 non-VR will be marginal (how important is IS/VR?) then I might prefer the Nikon.
The bulk of my wedding work is shot with the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and I have never found any need for VR - with care you can go as slow as 1/15th sec at the wide end. Don't forget that stabilisation won't freeze subject movement. There is a case for it at the long end in low light but really, on a mid/wide angle, it's not necessary, merely a bullet point to help sell lenses IMHO.Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 25th March 09:48
RobDickinson said:
30D is a lot old sensor wise (20d/350d sensor) apart from that its a decent all round body.
Havnt ever used (or seen) the nikon 17-55f2.8, horrendous price here ( more than a canon 24-70!) that could explain it, havnt even heard much about it. Nikons lenses do tend to be pricey but canon seem to be doing their best to match them too
A 40D does everything well, IMO one of canons best efforts in a long time ( perfomance/price) it damned near done everything the D300 did at half the price.
I'm not too concerned by the new price of such lenses as I would buy second hand. I can get an optically perfect but cosmetically more used one for about £500 and a mint one for about £600, both guaranteed. The Canon lens fetches around £600 too.Havnt ever used (or seen) the nikon 17-55f2.8, horrendous price here ( more than a canon 24-70!) that could explain it, havnt even heard much about it. Nikons lenses do tend to be pricey but canon seem to be doing their best to match them too
A 40D does everything well, IMO one of canons best efforts in a long time ( perfomance/price) it damned near done everything the D300 did at half the price.
Simpo Two said:
dan1502 said:
But, if you think the difference between the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 non-VR will be marginal (how important is IS/VR?) then I might prefer the Nikon.
The bulk of my wedding work is shot with the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and I have never found any need for VR - with care you can go as slow as 1/15th sec at the wide end. Don't forget that stabilisation won't freeze subject movement. There is a case for it at the long end in low light but really, on a mid/wide angle, it's not necessary, merely a bullet point to help sell lenses IMHO.Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 25th March 09:48
Perhaps it will help if you bear in mind how VR fits into the overall game plan. If a lens' max aperture is f4.5 or f5.6 then you can sometimes struggle for adequate shutter speed. But of course these days high-ISO performance is so good you can crank that up to compensate. If you're still stuck, or can't get the combination you want, then VR allows you to use a slower shutter speed to compensate for the small aperture.
But to me VR is really an electronic attempt to copy the abilities of fast lenses (usually beyond the budget of most hobbyists). If you have f2.8 or better to play with, then the shutter speed contraint often disappears - you can get a usable speed by using a wider aperture, or higher ISO, or both.
Sigma are launching a 70-200 f2.8 OS lens in a few months and that would be helpful for me when I have to work in churches without flash - but even now with the ordinary version it's amazing how you can brace yourself against a column or pew and get the result. Looking at an extreme example, I used 1/30th sec, f2.8 and ISO800 at 150mm. It worked, but was tough to do and the risk of a dud is higher. In those circumstances VR would allow me to shoot unsupported, giving me extra options for position, but, as I photograph people, a slower shutter speed could show up subject movement. So as you can see, in those challenging circumstances, the best answers are fast glass and good high-ISO performance - and good technique and knowing what the camera is doing.
In summary, but of course YMMV, I'd say that VR can be useful over 100mm but of limited value elsewhere. In the Nikkor 70-300VR (which is my play telephoto) it's useful because at 300mm and f5.6 (ie high magnification and small aperture) camera shake is more of an issue.
But to me VR is really an electronic attempt to copy the abilities of fast lenses (usually beyond the budget of most hobbyists). If you have f2.8 or better to play with, then the shutter speed contraint often disappears - you can get a usable speed by using a wider aperture, or higher ISO, or both.
Sigma are launching a 70-200 f2.8 OS lens in a few months and that would be helpful for me when I have to work in churches without flash - but even now with the ordinary version it's amazing how you can brace yourself against a column or pew and get the result. Looking at an extreme example, I used 1/30th sec, f2.8 and ISO800 at 150mm. It worked, but was tough to do and the risk of a dud is higher. In those circumstances VR would allow me to shoot unsupported, giving me extra options for position, but, as I photograph people, a slower shutter speed could show up subject movement. So as you can see, in those challenging circumstances, the best answers are fast glass and good high-ISO performance - and good technique and knowing what the camera is doing.
In summary, but of course YMMV, I'd say that VR can be useful over 100mm but of limited value elsewhere. In the Nikkor 70-300VR (which is my play telephoto) it's useful because at 300mm and f5.6 (ie high magnification and small aperture) camera shake is more of an issue.
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 25th March 13:19
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff