Help on jump to dSLR

[EuropeanSwallow]

I am the current owner of a G2, and am planning to jump to SLR when prices settle after Photokina. I have some experience on SLR usage, from a full manual Pentax MX with 50mm/1.7 and Vivitar 28mm (sort of junky wide prime!).

After looking around, reading reviews and counting my Euro cents :) I am planing on upgrading on two fases, for budget reasons.

First:

- EOS 300D
- Tamron 28-75/f2.8 (good "general purpose")
- Canon 50/f1.8 (portraits and short DOF and when "speed" is required, like indoors)
- Hoya UV-Filter HMC Super 67mm (protection)
- Canon Speedlite 550EX (One of the "hardest to swallow" choices, because it is expensive :shock:, as compared with 420EX; I'm seeing it as an investment for the full manual controls and strobe mode, which 420EX doesn't have; I'm affraid if I buy the 420EX I will regret it in the future)
- SanDisk 1 GB Compact Flash Card Ultra II
- Manfrotto MA-055PROB (tripod)
- Manfrotto MA-681B (monopod)
- Manfrotto MA-141RC (head)

Later:

- Canon 17-40L/f4 (architecture and to fill the wide gap)
- B&W UV (010) MRC 77 E (protection)
- B&W Circular polarizer MRC 77 E (outdoor pictures)

My photography stile is oriented towards portraits and architecture (specialy on holidays!). Don't do much nature/sports (as you'll deduct from the choice of lenses). I tend to prefer fast lenses.

Any comments/sugestions/alternatives/flames are very welcome!

[HJMinard]

Sounds like an excellent plan for your purposes and implied budget. I would recommend getting the EF-S 18-55 kit lens also (perhaps the new USM model if available). Until you get the 17-40, you'll have increased wide angle coverage at a very affordable price.

[EuropeanSwallow]

Hi Jay.

I see you went with a similar plan ;)

Do you realy think it's worth shelling the aditional EUR75 or so for the kit lenses just for the 17-28 gap, which is going to be useless after buying the 17-40?

What is your experience with your (our ;)) choice?

Thanks

[Boosting1Bar]

Looks like a good choice of equipment. I would suggest that if you aren't doing a lot of nature/sports type stuff why not skip the monopod for now? If you find you need it after you've been shooting a bit, then pick it up. Put that money towards the battery grip as it will give you a better balanced camera when handholding which it sounds like you'll be doing. I'd also pass on the kit lens and just save that money for the 17-40L.

[EuropeanSwallow]

Hi Brandon,

I have thought of the monopod specialy for shooting indoors (when using the flash is not an option) and shooting candids and portraits with natural (low) light "on the road", like in holidays, when I won't be carrying the full tripod, to aid with the low speeds. But I agree (with the fast glass and the ISO 1600 to help) it can perhaps be postponed... But between the tripod and the monopod, I have some doubts...

As for the grip, I also thought about it, but it's a bit expensive (and an investment that doesn't "hold", since it only works with the 300D). Perhaps I can play between it and the tripod/monopod... ;)

[HJMinard]

Hi Jay.

I see you went with a similar plan ;)

Yeah, that has become a very common "plan" amongst members who are just beginning their lens collection.

Do you realy think it's worth shelling the aditional EUR75 or so for the kit lenses just for the 17-28 gap, which is going to be useless after buying the 17-40?

What is your experience with your (our ;)) choice?

Well ... not really sure - it depends upon your needs and how long it will be until you can afford your 17-40. The 18-27 coverage below the 28-75 is more significant than you might imagine, particularly for your architechtural photography. The 18-55 will be (I think :?: ) available for separate, non-kit purchase, so perhaps you can use the 28-75 for your purposes and determine if it's wide enough before purchasing the kit lens.

I am very happy with my (your) choice. The 28-75 has been as good/better than advertised by forum members and other reviews. It's an amazing value. The 50/1.8 is, of course, another amazing value and a "no brainer" purchase for any new dslr owner.

[EuropeanSwallow]

Well ... not really sure - it depends upon your needs and how long it will be until you can afford your 17-40. The 18-27 coverage below the 28-75 is more significant than you might imagine, particularly for your architechtural photography. The 18-55 will be (I think :?: ) available for separate, non-kit purchase, so perhaps you can use the 28-75 for your purposes and determine if it's wide enough before purchasing the kit lens.

I am very happy with my (your) choice. The 28-75 has been as good/better than advertised by forum members and other reviews. It's an amazing value. The 50/1.8 is, of course, another amazing value and a "no brainer" purchase for any new dslr owner.

I think I'm going to try and see if the 28-75 can cope with it like you sugest. Damn 1.6x crop factor ;)

I've read, including yours, really good things on the Tamron. I like the fact it is fast (even with some complaints of some softness at f2.8 ) and has constant aperture. I had first looked at the Canon 28-135 USM IS, particularly for the IS, but as it seems its optics are rather disapointing. Softness seems to be the word...

I think I will be very please, when I have also the 17-40, that all the lenses are pretty fast (below f4) and have constant max aperture.

[blue-glass]

You might want to consider the Sigma EF-500 DG Super instead of the 550EX flash. It's almost as good for $100 less.

You will also want to buy a USB card reader right off the bat.

[nosquare2003]

A very good plan.

You may want a remote and extra batteries...

[EuropeanSwallow]

Sorry for the time lapse...

Thank you all for answering.

I looked up the Sigma flash. It looks good, but after reading around I got the info it is incompatible with my current G2. Aparently the G2 E-TTL is broken and only works with Canon flashes. Since I want to share the flash between the two machines, it seems I'm gonna havo to byte the bullet and shell out the cash for the 550EX... :cry:

I'm also getting a bit doubtful on the 300D vs. the upcomming 20D. I would have to wait longer so that 20D's price drops to something around €1200 to cope with it, but I'm starting to think it is probably wiser...

Also, i'm thinking on an alternative to buying the Tamron 28-75, that would be buying first the 17-40L and the 50, and then later buying the 70-200L f4. I have a problem on making a choice since I don't have access to either lenses to see what kind of usage it grants. Do you think given my proposed usage of the camera that the 40-70 range would be missed? Do you think going around with the 17-40 and the 50 at the beginning would be tough and limiting?

I'm setting an initial budget for camera, initial lenses, protecting filter and memory card of around €2000.

[Boosting1Bar]

Do you think given my proposed usage of the camera that the 40-70 range would be missed? Do you think going around with the 17-40 and the 50 at the beginning would be tough and limiting?


Given what you like to shoot, I don't think you'd be lacking too much by going with those lenses. The 50mm makes an excellent portrait lens with the 1.6x crop. I've bought and sold a number of lenses send buying my 10D and the only lens I have at the moment is my 50mm. I've been shooting with it exclusively for a few weeks now waiting on the extra loot I need for the 24-70 f2/8L. Very rarely do I find that I either can't get close enough, or I can't get far enough away to get the shot I want. Really the only time I've run into that was last weekend when I was shooting from a helicopter since I didn't really have a lot of control over where I was.

[HJMinard]

Can't comment on the 17-40 as I haven't used one, but I think it's a reasonable plan. All of the Canon 70-200L's are outstanding ... you can't go wrong. For your usages (portraits and architecture) I think you can live without telephoto for awhile.

As for the 20D, I won't try to talk you out of it (I hope to get one myself), but I wouldn't expect the price to come down for quite some time.

[aam1234]

First, I suggest skipping on the flash and use the saving for the 20D. Both the 300D and 20D have a built-in flash, so you can use that while saving for the 550/580EX later.

Second, these filters are not cheap and they are not absolutely necessary. You can use the savings on them for something else.


Just some ideas

[EuropeanSwallow]

I was just thinking, although I know it is controversial, to by the UV filter for protection/sealing of the lens (of course for the 17-40L only!).

Choices, choices... :cry:

[Cadwell]

Also, i'm thinking on an alternative to buying the Tamron 28-75, that would be buying first the 17-40L and the 50, and then later buying the 70-200L f4.

I have the 17-40L, the Tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 f/4L. First the controversial bit; the Tamron outperforms the 17-40L in the focal lengths they share. I know, I'm going to get burnt at the stake for saying that on this forum.. but doing a comparison between my two lenses that's what I see. When I want to shoot in that range I reach for the Tamron not the Canon. It's not that the 17-40 is bad (far from it - it's great) it's just that the Tamron is exceptional. Of the three lenses, the Tamron is my favourite "walk around lens" by a long way.

The only problem is that 28mm is not that wide on a 1.6 factor sensor.