Your Thoughts? Canon 30D Setup (~$2,500 USD)

[acpryor]

Greetings! I need advice on a camera setup. Your opinions are welcome.

My budget: +/- $2,500

I'm thinking of the Canon 30D (was thinking of the 20D but was waiting for today's announcement and I like the larger LCD, etc).

What lenses would you get, why, etc. I'm primarily into nature photography and family pictures (I have 2 kids). I fish a lot but don't need waterproof housing currently but a fast lens would be nice. I'm thinking a 300mm lens would be good for animal/bird shots.

Currently thinking:

Canon
Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Canon
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer

Canon
Canon 430EX Speedlite E-TTL II Shoe-Mount

Also: Bogen 728B tripod, LowePro Mini Trekker backpack, accessories

Here's my B&H Wishlist although not updated with 30D:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/WishList/1A54C47E23&BI=28

Your thoughts? Are there better alternatives for the lenses? I don't know what Sigma or Tamron lenses would be better or equal (and less expensive). Also, is the EF-S lens a mistake, should I get a comparable non-S lens?

Thanks for all your help.

[coldrain]

The 17-85mm lens is not a great lens optically. You would probably be better of with an EF 28-105mm USM II lens which is surprisingly good for its price, and a wide angle of your choice (like a Tokina 12-24 f4).
IS on the tele end of the 70-300 is handy, so that lens seems like a good choice.

[acpryor]

Thanks for the info! I hope more chime in with their opinions too.

Is the wide angle lens for macro shots more specifically?

[coldrain]

No, wider angle is for fitting more things into the image, like getting buildings into the photo, wider landscapes and such. For macro photos you need a macro lens.
1:1 macro lenses can be had for under 250$ (Sigma 50mm f2.8 EX DG macro).

[Mr. Peabody]

You should go with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens.

I had the older version 75-300mm with IS.

The newer version, 70-300 IS, has UD glass and a newer generation IS system.

I absolutely loved my 75-300. I'll bet you will love the 70-300.

[Rhys]

If you're prepared to go for secondhand kit and I see no reason why you should not then you can get some really good lenses secondhand. All you're missing is the fancy packaging and the hassle of going for those ridiculous rebates. I bought my last couple of lenses secondhand.

I would personally not buy either of the lenses you suggested. I would, however, go for the following setup:

Canon 70-200 f4L - this is $750 new at Ritz so it should be cheaper secondhand at KEH.
Canon 28-70 f2.8L - This is $950 new apparently so it should be cheaper secondhand at KEH.

This means you'd need something for the ultra-wide end for which I would suggest the 17-40 f4L over the 16-35 f2.8L as it's half the price and you lose just 1 mm and 1 stop by getting it.

Or you could get a Tokina 12-24 which is reputedly excellent.

The number one thing not to scrimp on is glass. Cameras come and go with remarkable regularity and speed. It's not like the old days when you bought a Nikon FM and then upgraded the glass when you could.

Go for the best glass even if it means you have to get a cheaper camera and if Canon comes out with an upgraded 20D then the original 20D will start to lose its value and will become cheaper to buy. Even if it means you have to get a 300D instead of the 30D then I'd still say get the best glass as it'll have far more effect on your photos than anything else.

The most important thing to have on a dSLR is a manual mode so you can take the photos you want. As long as a dSLR has that, it doesn't really matter what other funky modes are on it nor what manner of metering is used.

[aparmley]

AP -

You are going to be getting one great camera in either the 20D or 30D so I'd like to steer in the direction Ryhs is mentioning - aka not skimping on the lenses.
I think its important to have a top notch prime so you know what its like, fast glass, great sharpness. For that I'd say get the 501.4 and don't look back. the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II is great for a knock around zoom! Plus it will serve as a learning lens, It will tell you what FLs you like the most, it will teach about aperture V SSs. Plus its cheap. It may prove to be too slow [re: max aperture] for your purposes, finding that out with the $600 70-300 would be a bigger waste. This way you can pick it up and then discover what you need more reach or speed [max aperture] for the types of shooting you want to do. For me Primes are great right now. So I don't want to recommend picking up all primes just because I don't have a problem with them. But I also don't want to tell you get the cheap zoom because maybe you will like the primes. . . Which is why I recommend picking up the 50 1.4 - test the waters with that great prime. The 85 1.8 is great as well. I'll think about it a little more and repost if I feel I need too. Good luck

[acpryor]

Rhys -

Thanks for the feedback. I checked KEH and they don't have any of the lenses you suggested... Any other reliable used camera places worth checking into?

[acpryor]

AP -

You are going to be getting one great camera in either the 20D or 30D so I'd like to steer in the direction Ryhs is mentioning - aka not skimping on the lenses.
I think its important to have a top notch prime so you know what its like, fast glass, great sharpness. For that I'd say get the 501.4 and don't look back. the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II is great for a knock around zoom! Plus it will serve as a learning lens, It will tell you what FLs you like the most, it will teach about aperture V SSs. Plus its cheap. It may prove to be too slow [re: max aperture] for your purposes, finding that out with the $600 70-300 would be a bigger waste. This way you can pick it up and then discover what you need more reach or speed [max aperture] for the types of shooting you want to do. For me Primes are great right now. So I don't want to recommend picking up all primes just because I don't have a problem with them. But I also don't want to tell you get the cheap zoom because maybe you will like the primes. . . Which is why I recommend picking up the 50 1.4 - test the waters with that great prime. The 85 1.8 is great as well. I'll think about it a little more and repost if I feel I need too. Good luck

What would you suggest in the way of a zoom lens? Is the 300mm IS USM II a "cheap" lens? I don't much so I want to be clear. Given distance shots being a factor whether out in a forest somewhere or at my nephews basketball games shooting from the bleachers (both tripod free).

[Rhys]

Rhys -

Thanks for the feedback. I checked KEH and they don't have any of the lenses you suggested... Any other reliable used camera places worth checking into?

The KEH website does not show much of their actual inventory. Try ringing them instead. They mail me their catalogue every few weeks.

[DonSchap]

For wide-angle, I went with the Tamron, as a matter of weight versus anything else. The Tokina has a slightly better sweep in the performance end, but when you are shooting all day... that extra weight just can make a day rather long.

The Tamron 11-18mm has a minmum focus of 9.8 inches, is only 12.5 ounces... and is fairly compact (3.1 inches) versus the Tokina 12-24mm minimum focus of 11.8 inches, coming in a hefty 20.1 ounces and 3.5 inches long.

The cost of each was not even a "Jackson" apart, so it wasn't that.

I don't know... I'm not an expert... but before I ran out and plunked 4 C-notes down on a wide angle lens, I would give the Tamron a reasonable look. Put it on the end of your rig and snap a few off. Then get a crane and hoist the Tokina into position... :eek:

Sure makes my camera bag easier to tote.

Have fun in the sun,
Don :)

[Rhys]

As always, when I bought my lenses I didn't choose the best. I got all the best for my Nikon MF setup. For digital it has been a lot harder.

I stayed with 17-35 as my widest because I dodn't feel that extra width could be achieved without distorion of the perspective or the image. Having said that, I;d probably have gone with the 11-24 rather than the 17-35 as long as the 11-24 worked on full-frame. I do intend to go full frame at some point.

My 17-35 does overlap on my 28-75 which is annoying. I'd rather have a gap than an overlap.

I won't sell my lenses just yet although I can see the 50mm f1.8 and Tamron 70-300 as being prime candidates for selling.

I'd probably replace the 70-300 with a 70-200 and a 400.

[capedeci]

It's always OK to have an OK lens, you don't have to use the best lens to be a good photographer. The 70-300 IS lens IMO is an OK lens, while the 70-200 F/4L is the good one, it's more expensive. By the wayThe 17-85IS and 70-300IS combination to me is very costly, you paid too much for IS instead of optical quality. But if IS is necessary for you, then get it, because noticing pictures taken with so-so lens is much difficult than noticing blurred image caused by handshake. The new 18-55 f/2.8IS is said to be very good, with a very bad price. Tamron also coming with a new 18-50 f/2.8, but it lacks IS. If you liked and want IS a lot, a body-based IS worth considering,I think Sony will already put their offer once the 30D is released.

[acpryor]

As always, when I bought my lenses I didn't choose the best. I got all the best for my Nikon MF setup. For digital it has been a lot harder...

...I won't sell my lenses just yet although I can see the 50mm f1.8 and Tamron 70-300 as being prime candidates for selling.

I'd probably replace the 70-300 with a 70-200 and a 400.


But if I can't afford both, you'd go with a 200mm with some type of extender for close-up shots (from a distance) versus a 300mm?

[acpryor]

Anyone? Beuhller? Beuhller?

[Rhys]

But if I can't afford both, you'd go with a 200mm with some type of extender for close-up shots (from a distance) versus a 300mm?

No. I'd stick with the 200 and walk a few feet closer.

[coldrain]

No. I'd stick with the 200 and walk a few feet closer.
Then the animal will run off, the fence won't budge and your feet get wet.
Walking closer is not always a solution :eek:

[acpryor]

Then the animal will run off, the fence won't budge and your feet get wet.
Walking closer is not always a solution :eek:

True.. which begs my original question... 300mm or 200mm with extender?

[coldrain]

depends on your budget, your requirements (size, weight, light conditions...). So, what lenses are we actually talking about? not 200 and 300 mm primes I am sure?

[acpryor]

depends on your budget, your requirements (size, weight, light conditions...). So, what lenses are we actually talking about? not 200 and 300 mm primes I am sure?

Well, opinions have tainted my original ideas (which is fine), so I'm currently thinking something along these lines:

Canon
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer

And

Possibly:
Tamron 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 XR DI II LD Aspherical (IF) AF Zoom Lens

Or

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens with case 1319 and lens hood EW-83E - USA

and when the money becomes available, I suppose I need a prime lens:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Standard AutoFocus Lens - USA

But... I'm going based on my research and what users on this forum suggest, so if something stands out as a bad move, I'm totally open to changing things.

I've already pre-orderd the 30D.

Also... I want my setup to be as light as I can given I'll be housing all this stuff in a backpack of sorts (LowePro Mini Trekker) and will be using it out in field (Yosemite, etc). I'll be shooting mostly landscape/nature shots and of course, family pictures.

Hope the extra info helps.

[coldrain]

As far as I have heard the 70-300 IS USM is quite good for its breed. It will keep the weight down compared to faster 300mm lenses.

I would choose the Tokina 12-24 over the Tamron, the 18-24mm extra range would come in handy often I would think.

You should maybe consider the EF 28-105 USM II to bridge the gap between those two, it is an inexpensive lens with surprising performance.

[acpryor]

I would choose the Tokina 12-24 over the Tamron, the 18-24mm extra range would come in handy often I would think.

I think I agree with you although I'm a bit concerned about weight issues, the Tokina is almost twice the weight of the Tamron. Will I notice?


You should maybe consider the EF 28-105 USM II to bridge the gap between those two, it is an inexpensive lens with surprising performance.

Obviously, the price is an issue, but what about this one instead:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Image Stabilized AutoFocus Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens - USA

Then I wouldn't be needing to buy a prime lens right away... I could save up some cashola.

[Rhys]

I would always recommend a 70-200 and a separate 300 prime.

I'd go for a fast 70-200 - something like a Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

[acpryor]

I would always recommend a 70-200 and a separate 300 prime.

I'd go for a fast 70-200 - something like a Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

But I can't afford both....

[jamison55]

If you've already committed to a 30D, than your glass budget is reduced quite a bit. Subtract the price of a flash ($250 for the 430EX), and you're left with $750 - not a very big budget.

Here's what I would recommend...buy the 30D + the 18-55 kit lens + 430ex. Shoot with this combo for a month, than ask yourself "what do I wish I had more of?"

Is it zoom? Then invest the $650 you have left over in a nice zoom lens (like the 70-300 IS, or the Sigma 70-200 f2.8)

Is it wide? Then invest in one of the ultra-wides already mentioned. I personally use (and like) the Sigma 10-20...

Is it sharpness, color, and contrast? Then look into something from the "L" line in a focal length that you like, and a price you can afford (17-40L, 200 f2.8L, 70-200 f4L, are a few of the lower priced lenses).

Purchasing the 30D as a body, you are compromising some of your glass budget for a bigger LCD and spot metering. Just keep in mind, that a $400 used DReb with good lenses will take far better pictures than an $8000 1DsMkII with crummy glass. The lenses are the most important component in crisp, clear, contrasty photos...always have been, always will be.


Now if I had $2500 to spend on a rig I would buy:

Used 20D: $900
Used 420ex: $150
Used 17-40 f4L: $600
New 50 f1.8: $75
New 70-300 IS: $600

And $175 left over for accessories or to put into the bank for a later purchase.

This is what would meet my needs after almost two years of shooting and losing money buying and selling lenses. The fact is, you won't know what you really need until you start shooting!

PS - Check out the Buy and Sell forums at www.fredmiranda.com. A LOT of nice gear goes through there every day, usually for less than the used dealers like KEH or Adorama sell for.

[acpryor]

If you've already committed to a 30D, than your glass budget is reduced quite a bit. Subtract the price of a flash ($250 for the 430EX), and you're left with $750 - not a very big budget....

Thanks for the info.This post was extremely helpful.

I'm already planning on spending a little more than I thought and am targeting around $3k for my purchase given the higher cost of the 30D over the 20D.

I'll check out the fredmiranda site for used equipment.

[Rhys]

Is the 30D essential?

I mean, it's basically a 20D with a few extras. Are they really utterly worth the extra money?

Camera bodies come and go. Lenses go on forever. I'd say plonk all your money into lenses and if necessary, get a 300D.

At the end of the day, people are interested in the picture, not the camera. The lenses have far more effect on the picture than the camera does.

[acpryor]

Is the 30D essential?

I mean, it's basically a 20D with a few extras. Are they really utterly worth the extra money?

Camera bodies come and go. Lenses go on forever. I'd say plonk all your money into lenses and if necessary, get a 300D.

At the end of the day, people are interested in the picture, not the camera. The lenses have far more effect on the picture than the camera does.

I hear you, I really do... I just don't want to buy a piece of gear knowing an "improved" model is already out. The larger LCD is a nice thing (I wear glasses) and the other improvements I've read about seem to be indicating, that it's a good camera at a good price. Perhaps not enough for some users to upgrade from a 20D or something, but for people like me with only a film camera, it seems like a really good choice.

I agree with you about the lenses. I'm the type of person though, who'd rather get the camera body and a decent lens, and have to save up for more lens purchases down the road, then to buy a lesser camera now with several good lenses now.

That said... several users have said that the lenses I'm considering are indeed, good lenses. Since I'm new at this, I'm not clear on why for example, the 70-300mm USM IS is not a good lens in your opinion. I know the L series are all getting better reviews, but I don't know if I'd appreciate the differences between them enough to justify the extra cost. Additionally, I plan to take many, many bird shots, and I'm thinking I'll really need a 300mm or great lens. I have a 200mm lens for my current camera (Canon Rebel Ti) and it doesn't get me close enough. An extender would help but at the cost of quality and AF.

Am I making sense?

[Rhys]

I hear you, I really do... I just don't want to buy a piece of gear knowing an "improved" model is already out. The larger LCD is a nice thing (I wear glasses) and the other improvements I've read about seem to be indicating, that it's a good camera at a good price. Perhaps not enough for some users to upgrade from a 20D or something, but for people like me with only a film camera, it seems like a really good choice.

I agree with you about the lenses. I'm the type of person though, who'd rather get the camera body and a decent lens, and have to save up for more lens purchases down the road, then to buy a lesser camera now with several good lenses now.

That said... several users have said that the lenses I'm considering are indeed, good lenses. Since I'm new at this, I'm not clear on why for example, the 70-300mm USM IS is not a good lens in your opinion. I know the L series are all getting better reviews, but I don't know if I'd appreciate the differences between them enough to justify the extra cost. Additionally, I plan to take many, many bird shots, and I'm thinking I'll really need a 300mm or great lens. I have a 200mm lens for my current camera (Canon Rebel Ti) and it doesn't get me close enough. An extender would help but at the cost of quality and AF.

Am I making sense?

Aha. I see an apparent misaprehansion: The 30D has a 1.6 crop factor which means that a 200mm lens will be more like 320mm and a 300mm lens will be more like 480mm.

IS won't help if you want to take photographs of birds in flight as I believe it will work against you there.

Might I suggest in light of your ornathological interests, using a Sigma 50-500 lens? They're about $1200 but cover the longer lengths.

There's also the Tamron 200-500.

Personally, I had my XT as a wedding gift from my parents. I chose that over the 20D because it was smaller and lighter. Having said that, I'm in 2 minds as to whether I should have gone for a 20D instead.

[acpryor]

Aha. I see an apparent misaprehansion: The 30D has a 1.6 crop factor which means that a 200mm lens will be more like 320mm and a 300mm lens will be more like 480mm...

Ahh... you're right. That never crossed my mind. More food for thought, yes?

I'll look over the other lenses you mention.

How might IS hurt taking pics of birds moving, etc? Same with say, taking pictures of my nephew playing basketball. Are action shots tougher with IS? I was thinking IS would be helpful for these type shots since it's unlikely I'll have a tripod handy. Also, why do you not like the other lenses I mentioned (ones others suggested)? Pros or Cons?

[jamison55]

Saying IS won't help with action shots isn't entirely true.

Peaople get motion blur in pictures for two reasons: shaky hands and moving subjects. IS can't freeze moving subjects, but it can help with the shaky hands...and often times shaky hands are more of a culprit than moving subjects at high telephoto ranges.

Think about two common photographic assumptions:

1) In order to stop a fast moving person, you need a SS of at least 1/250.

2) In order to not blur an image due to camera shake, your SS should be 1/(focal length). So for a 200mm lens, that's 1/200.

On a 1.6cf digital body, that 200mm lens becomes 320mm. Since the rule applies to the crop as well, your SS now needs to be 1/320 to avoid camera shake.

That's a far faster SS than you'll need to freeze the action!

The IS tames the camera shake, so someone with IS gains an advantage handheld at the long telephoto end over someone who doesn't!

Having said that, someone with a lens that has a faster aperture has an advantage over them both.

The 70-300 IS you're considering has a max aperture at 300mm of f5.6 (not sure what the max ap is at 200mm, but let's pretend it's 5.6). So at 200mm (320 equiv) f5.6 and 1/250, you have to have a pretty bright day to have enough light to expose the image correctly.

A 70-200 f2.8, on the other hand, can take similarly exposed images in 1/4 the light because it is two stops faster (and each stop f4, f2.8, doubles the amount of light that reaches the sensor). It can also use even higher SS's on those brighter days. So you have the option with the "faster" lens to take pictures in darker venues or with faster SS's.

[coldrain]

If you are already worried about the extra weight of a Tokina 12-24 compared to a Tamron 11-18 (345 vs. 570 grams) I would not consider a 70-200 f2.8!

1270 grams for a Sigma already... more for the Canons.

On normally sunny days you will have no problem with the 70-300 anyway. And the IS can be shut off in one direction for panning movement.

[acpryor]

Saying IS won't help with action shots isn't entirely true.

Peaople get motion blur in pictures for two reasons: shaky hands and moving subjects. IS can't freeze moving subjects, but it can help with the shaky hands...and often times shaky hands are more of a culprit than moving subjects at high telephoto ranges.....

Thanks so much for the helpful primer Jamison! If I lived near Massachusetts, I'd handily pay for a consult.

So much to learn, much to buy, too little in the bank account...

[acpryor]

If you are already worried about the extra weight of a Tokina 12-24 compared to a Tamron 11-18 (345 vs. 570 grams) I would not consider a 70-200 f2.8!

1270 grams for a Sigma already... more for the Canons.

On normally sunny days you will have no problem with the 70-300 anyway. And the IS can be shut off in one direction for panning movement.

I'm just trying to gather as much info as I can, because all those ounces do add up. Gosh I'm such a geek.