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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 7, 2005, 9:41 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 25
Default

I thought I was going to get the nikon d70 then I learned about the cannon rebates on the 300D. Now I dont know if I can justify the price differance in the two cameras. Anyway I am willing to spend about 1700.00 total for camera, bag, lenses and big big memory card.

I mostly take pictures of my kids, family and dogs. Vacations and baseball, cheerleading, dance recitals in low light. You know regular family stuff. So what lens would you fine photo taking folks recomend?



thanks for your help.
kimbo12371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 8, 2005, 4:57 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

If I were you...

DRebel Body = $800-$100 rebate = $700

EF-S 17-85mm IS = $600
(Excellent walk-around-lens)

75-300mm f4-5.6 III USM = $180
(decent zoom for occasional use)

50mm f1.8 (for very low light stuff). = $80

Lexar 1Gb CF card = $99

Which leaves $40 for a bag.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 9:04 AM   #3
kex
Senior Member
 
kex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,022
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
If I were you...

DRebel Body = $800-$100 rebate = $700

EF-S 17-85mm IS = $600
(Excellent walk-around-lens)

75-300mm f4-5.6 III USM = $180
(decent zoom for occasional use)

50mm f1.8 (for very low light stuff). = $80

Lexar 1Gb CF card = $99

Which leaves $40 for a bag.
you forgot to calculate some money for a tripod and uv-filters which will protect the lenses. + a circular polarizer maybe. But I agree on the rest.
kex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 7:29 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 25
Default

thanks for the replies.. I have a tripod but I dont really understand about uv filters. what do they do?



thanks
kimbo12371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 9:06 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10
Default

I have just gone through a similiar process.

Here is my .02

Canon Rebel w/Kit lens $870
18-55 Canon Kit

50 1.8 Canon $ 75
85 1.8 Canon $ 326
200 2.8 Canon $ 650



1 Gig CF card $ 100

Total $2016 - $300 Rebel rebate - $45 85/1.8 rebate - $75 200/2.8 rebate =
$1596


That leaves you $100 for shipping and a bag.

Why would I chose the above if I started again? I bought the 17-40 L lens, wide angle was the reason I bought the DSLR. If I was not taking photos for real estate - I would have stayed with the 18-55 Kit lens. It gets mixed reviews, but look at the photos that people have taken with it before you discount it.


Around family and friends (I would assume dogs too) I have found that the flash is not real popular! No suprise here. So I end up using the 50/1.8 most of the time when lighting is limited. I have been very pleased with the photos I have taken with it. I purchased the 70-200 F4 and it's a great lens for the beach (sunlight) but is not ideal for low light photos including baseball, basketball, and I would assume cheerleading, and dance recitals. I am looking to add a 85/1.8 for this type photos to compliment the 50/1.8. Everything I have read about the 200/2.8 (note I have not seen this lens yet) leads me to believe that it would be awesome for low light photography when you want a longer reach. I find myself using the 70-200 around the family frequently at the 200 end of the zoom. If you are willing to change lenses, I think it would be hard to find a better combo for quality and low light capability for the $1700 price range that you are looking for.



Best of luck in you search



Abernathy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 4:02 AM   #6
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I'm sure the prime lenses suggested are excellent. My concern would be because of the convenience of the zoom you may end up with the kit lens on the camera most of the time. That would be a shame, because it would be the lowest quality lens by far.

In my bag, the 200mm would be the least-used lens. To me it makes little sense to spend 75% of the lens budget on the lens used least frequently. Surely it makes sense to spend most of the money on the most-frequently used lens? Of course if you would be spending much of your time using the 200mm lens then it would doubtless be an excellent choice.

Which is why for my photography I would spend the $600 on the 17-85mm, the good zoom range will cover 80% of my shots with high optical quality, the Image Stabiliser combined with the ISO flexibility of a DSLR should mean that one can get many of one's shots without flash.

It all depends on how you're actually going to use the camera. If your usage pattern matches Abernathy's more closely, and you don't mind swapping lenses, then his selection would be hard to beat.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 5:14 AM   #7
kex
Senior Member
 
kex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,022
Default

kimbo12371 wrote:
Quote:
thanks for the replies.. I have a tripod but I dont really understand about uv filters. what do they do?



thanks
you'll probably need it to protect the lens from scratches.
kex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 6:19 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10
Default

My recommendation was based on the stated desire to take photos for "baseball, cheerleading, and dance recitals in low light". I agree the 17-85 is a good option if most of the photos taken will either be outside of in situations where flash is acceptable.

The fixed lenses are great quality, light, less expensive than other options for taking photos in low light.



Good luck.



Other alternatives may include the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD IF Aspherical Zoom Lens for $350 - $40 rebate. Good for low light, don't have to change lenses, but it is slower with autofocus than the Canon options.
Abernathy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 10:27 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Sisko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15
Default

I got my 300D (Rebel) in September, with the 18-55mm EFS lens.

For Christmas I got the Sigma 55-200 DC and the Canon 50mm F1.8 and the BG-E1 grip.

Later this year I intend to buy the 17-40L to replace the 18-55 and once I get the funds together the 70-200 F2.8. I think this should cover most situations.
Sisko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2005, 6:57 PM   #10
Member
 
eosthree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 48
Default

I would try to maximize my rebate. If you buy 3 items from the list you'll get triple the rebate amounts for each item. The best bang for your buck in my opinion is:


Rebel body
$740
17-40 f/4L
$670
70-200 f/4
$570
That totals
$1980

Rebel rebate
$100x3
17-40 rebate
$25x3
70-200 rebate
$25x3
for a total rebate of
$450
leaving you a total of
$1530
for a very capable body and 2 top quality lenses. That's very close to the price of a 20D body alone. Those lenses will follow you nicely to any body you may purchase in the future. They are absolutley top quality and allow you to take the best advantage of the rebates.

The 28-135 IS is a very good lens also and is on the rebate list.
The 75-300 IS is a decent lens and is on the rebate list too.
If you went with the 28-135 and 70-300 lenses I would look into the Drebel kit with the 18-55 to cover the wide end.

I listed lenses that would be good mostly for outdoor photography, they will work for indoors if you up your ISO and clean up the resulting grain. For the most part even an f/2.8 lens won't gather enough light for indoor photography.
eosthree 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 4:33 PM.