Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 30, 2006, 3:04 AM   #1
Junior Member
rick66's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2


I'm getting into DSLR's for 1st time and want to really push the boat out and stretch my budget. Looking for a fairly future-proof option. After weeks of reading reviews and trying equipment in store I'm down to the following choices:

Do I opt for the new canon 30 d with a good tamron / sigma lens (total price around 1500) or, do I go for a canon 350 d with an L-series lens (total price around 1700).

Is it worth the difference? I guess a superior lens will always outperform a lower quality lens regardless of the camera body?

Any advice welcome!
rick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 30, 2006, 3:34 AM   #2
Senior Member
Marc H's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 130

Better rethink your question

What type of photograpy do you do? Sports, model, nature or what?

What "L" lens had you in mind? There aren't many "L" lenses that cover enough range from Wide to tele to suffice as a single lens option. And lenses that do have that range are probably out of your budget.

Your probably better off with a 350D, the depreciation is lower on these camera's than on higher end D-SLR. And buying a 30D with only a budget lens is just money thrown away.

What i would dow with a budget like that: is a 350D, With a Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR/Sigma 24(or 28)-70 2.8 EX lens, Add a nice budget tele, Sigma's 70-300 APO DG Macro comes to mind, and your basic needs are covered, with some spare cash for a nice bag, 2nd battery, and enough storage.

This would cost at BHPhoto: 1357.95 (with the tamron lens)
(first site i could think of)

Just my 2 cents

Marc H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 3:44 AM   #3
Junior Member
rick66's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2

Thanks Marc - good advice re the lenses - particularly with the low f-stops

Not sure about the quality aspect of the 350 though .....plus everyone seems to be buying them and I'm not sure the re-sale value will therefore be that high: market is saturated

I was interested in the canon24 - 70 L series as a good standard / everyday lens. Naturally I want as few lenses as possible (a) for the cost and (b) to reduce dust particle problems.

Until I moved into DSLR I used a sigma 28-300 on a canon body which covered all my needs.
rick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 8:30 AM   #4
Senior Member
BillDrew's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512

No matter what digital camera you get today, it is almost certain to be obsolete and have a near zero resale value in 3 to 6 years. New cameras will come out with higher dynamic range, higher ISO, less noise, anti shake, longer/faster bursts, wireless controls, built in GPS, ..., and it will darn your socks.

A high quality lens might seem a better bet for future proofing, but that assumes the manufacturer will not change the lens mount in future cameras. A lens is less likely to become obsolete, but there are no guarantees

BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 9:17 AM   #5
Senior Member
mtclimber's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143

I agree 100% with Bill Drew!

I had some Nikkor Lenses and hankered for a D-50 body, so I kept my investment to a minimum, purchasing a Nikon refurbaished body for $399. That way I can have some fun and not feel as it I was spending a ton of money. Now I have to re-sell my D-70 body, which by the way cost a lot more than the D-50 body, just 14 months ago.

mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.