Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 22, 2004, 10:45 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

thanks for your input eric!

i'm definetely leaning towards the 10D...but it all depends on prices next spring...and how much i can save up....

thanks!

Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2004, 10:08 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

If you shoot mainly landscape then 10D should be more than enough. Check out slightly used ones, I heard they going cheap as people upgrade to 20D. I am also getting tempted after reading good reviews of 20D for shooting birds. I think Sigma has a new lens 18-125, along with 18-50 f2.8 which seems comparable to the 17-40L.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2004, 10:48 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

hmm....18-125...i'll have to look that one up!

thanks!

vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2004, 5:26 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

ok, i'm getting there....lol

now i have my camera, and one lens...

all i need...is a carry around lens...

would it be better to get a "average" quality 24-135mm or a much cheaper "good" quality 24-70mm...

would it be worth the quality loss to have that extra reach?

there's also two "below average" quality 28-200mm....sigma or tamron...

so..

my question is....quality? or reach?

if i go with the 24-70mm...all the stuff put together would be more like 1800 dollars..instead of the 2000+ that is possible with other lenses...

btw...i'd like to get a polarizer too...so that's 100 bucks...



well, thanks again for your help!

Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2004, 9:56 AM   #15
Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535
Default

photosbyvito wrote:
Quote:
ok, i'm getting there....lol

now i have my camera, and one lens...

all i need...is a carry around lens...

would it be better to get a "average" quality 24-135mm or a much cheaper "good" quality 24-70mm...

What's wrong with the DRebel's 18-55mm kit lens as a "carry around" lens. Many people have looked down on that lens and call it inferior, cheap, etc. but it is a very capable lens as well as being small and lightweight. And for anyone just getting started in photography - you should own and use a 50mm prime lens - real photographers don't use zooms :blah:
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2004, 11:14 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

lol, real photographers have full time jobs too...

lol

hm...about the 18-55...i think i'd want the extra mm's...i'm not sure how much still life stuff i could do with that wide a lens...

i normally shoot macro mode at full zoom with my G2 (102mm with digital zoom)...

i dunno...i don't need anything too fast..lol..cuz i'm not planning on shooting much wildlife, or even people....but i think i'd need at least 70mm...

hmm....all these ideas thrown around have brought me to my own conclusions....lol that's always good right?

btw....wouldn't a 50mm prime be inflexible? i guess my lack of pre-digital SLR experience is killing me now..lol

Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:37 AM.