7D kit - correct me before I break the bank

[GreigM]

As with some of my previous posts I'm just about to run out and buy a 7D and a few lenses - this is my first proper DSLR, so effectively starting from scratch.

Where I'm buying the 15-85mm kit isn't available, only the 18-135 or body only. 18-135 is less than £100 more expensive than body only, so was just going to go for this - not a great lens, but for under £100 I suppose I'd always resell on ebay.

Aside from that I was going to buy a "nifty fifty" canon 50mm 1.8 II and to start me off with some "proper" glass a Canon 70-200 f/4 L.

I'll eventually pick up a better "walk around" lens, a wide and a macro - but is that a decent set to start with? Suggestions wanted. My main use will be a good mix - wildlife, motorsport and very importantly (and how I sold it to the Mrs) a baby on the way in the autumn...

I've also got a 64Gb UDMA 6 card on order as I want to play with the 1080p a lot!

[d1d215]

as i've heard - canon kit lens are bad as hell. I really love the video, best I've seen. and this comes from a Nikon guy !

[GreigM]

d1d215 said:

as i've heard - canon kit lens are bad as hell. I really love the video, best I've seen. and this comes from a Nikon guy !

yes, have figured this out, but is it bad enough that it ain't worth £100?

[d1d215]

eh ! just go for it ! as you said - you can always sell it .

[BlueMR2]

That £100 would cover the nifty fifty.

[nick heppinstall]

Is the video AVCHD ?

[itsnotarace]

Don't spunk the entire budget on the body and stick the equivalent of a milk bottle to it, you would get better results by spending less on the body and more on the lenses.

[GreigM]

itsnotarace said:

Don't spunk the entire budget on the body and stick the equivalent of a milk bottle to it, you would get better results by spending less on the body and more on the lenses.

I didn't think the 70-200L was the equivalent of a milk bottle.

[miniman]

GreigM said:

itsnotarace said:

Don't spunk the entire budget on the body and stick the equivalent of a milk bottle to it, you would get better results by spending less on the body and more on the lenses.

I didn't think the 70-200L was the equivalent of a milk bottle.

It's not, it's an excellent lens. Not as good as the 70-200 2.8 L but there's a big price difference between them.

[itsnotarace]

GreigM said:

I didn't think the 70-200L was the equivalent of a milk bottle.

I didn't say it was, however since you asked - the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM is better for not much more cash

[GreigM]

itsnotarace said:

GreigM said:

I didn't think the 70-200L was the equivalent of a milk bottle.

I didn't say it was, however since you asked - the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM is better for not much more cash

Interesting - it looks about £60 more, so cost not an issue - is it very heavy though - was drawn to the canon as it was fairly light?

[itsnotarace]

It will be heavier yes, see if you can try one and see what you think.

[S47]

Get the 'new generation' EFS 18-55 IS kit lens, I paid £53 new for mine from an ebay seller. it's a million times better than the older kit lenses such as the non IS 18-55, 17-85IS etc.
If your seller doesn't have it, buy your Camera from elsewhere, or just buy the Body only and get the lens new from Ebay like I did. There really is a huge performance difference in the New generation EFS lenses compared to the older lenses.

[AMD87]

GreigM said:

itsnotarace said:

GreigM said:

I didn't think the 70-200L was the equivalent of a milk bottle.

I didn't say it was, however since you asked - the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM is better for not much more cash

Interesting - it looks about £60 more, so cost not an issue - is it very heavy though - was drawn to the canon as it was fairly light?

The Canon is light because it's an F4 (less glass meaning lighter) i have the canon 2.8 is if you want to give it a go and see what you think and also have the 18-55 is and 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 aswell since we both live in hamilton.

[GreigM]

AMD87 said:

GreigM said:

itsnotarace said:

GreigM said:

I didn't think the 70-200L was the equivalent of a milk bottle.

I didn't say it was, however since you asked - the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM is better for not much more cash

Interesting - it looks about £60 more, so cost not an issue - is it very heavy though - was drawn to the canon as it was fairly light?

The Canon is light because it's an F4 (less glass meaning lighter) i have the canon 2.8 is if you want to give it a go and see what you think and also have the 18-55 is and 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 aswell since we both live in hamilton.

much appreciated - may well take you up on it once I have the body...think in the meantime I'll hold on buying the telephoto and get the body and a better "walk around" lens and start practicing...

[Dogsey]

S47 said:

Get the 'new generation' EFS 18-55 IS kit lens, I paid £53 new for mine from an ebay seller. it's a million times better than the older kit lenses such as the non IS 18-55, 17-85IS etc.
If your seller doesn't have it, buy your Camera from elsewhere, or just buy the Body only and get the lens new from Ebay like I did. There really is a huge performance difference in the New generation EFS lenses compared to the older lenses.

While it may be a vast improvement over the previous 18-55, I wouldn't have thought that you'd want to put a lens like this on the 7D.