First DSLR Purchase!!!!!!!!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello everyone. I'm going to be making my first DSLR purchase soon, and after extensive research and juggling prices I've come up with the following list for purchase:

Canon EOS 20D (Body only)
Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS lens with hood
Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens with hood
Lexar 80x 1GB compact flash card

Comes to about $2,348.70 BEFORE rebates which will drop it down another 100+.:eek: Very happy about that. Still gotta add a case and a few things to that list, but oh well.

I figure that's a good start for now. I'll be using it for pics of animals at zoo's, landscapes, flowers, people, and sports primarily. Right now I can't really spend more than 2500 so I figured this'll be a great start.

Any suggestions? Changes? Or do you all think this is a good start?

[felix21685]

looks good..lexars' wa doesnt work with canon cameras..
i would get a sandisk extreme III

[sixshot]

Is there a big differnce between the Extreme III and Ultra II? If there is, the Ultra II would do most users.

[6spd]

There is really no difference in the Extreme III 1gig and the Ultra II 1gig.

The Lexars do work with Canon's.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303

[Sicily1918]

looks good..lexars' wa doesnt work with canon cameras..
i would get a sandisk extreme IIIOr the Sandisk Ultra II (little cheaper and practically the same speed). Go here (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303)...

Although, I have the Lexar 80x as well and they're both great cards.

Oh, if I may suggest: either get two 512MB CFs (about 130 JPEGs at high res on ISO 100) or save up and get a second 1GB soon. I say this 'cause that's your 'film', and it wouldn't do to have it freak out on ya when you've already gotten shots written to it -- not that it's ever happened to anyone I know, but better safe than sorry.

Great choices otherwise! :)

[felix21685]

6spd

i know they work , i was commenting about their write accelaration ..that doesnt help you out when you use canons cameras.

so you pay a little more and don't get more out of it..

ultra II is a fast card but the fastest and the most rugged is the extreme

[6spd]

looks good..lexars' wa doesnt work with canon cameras..


Really hard to understand what you wrote. Maybe you should write more clearly. :)

i know they work , i was commenting about their write accelaration ..that doesnt help you out when you use canons cameras.



Where's your proof on this? I'm just curious because the link I posted has test speeds for almost all CF cards and the Lexar ranked #2 with the 20D.

[lostdoggy]

WA, works on the upcoming or new D70s I believe. Read that somewhere. I read that it is the 1st DSLR to take advantage of the technology.

[Titus213]

I thought the DigicII in the 20D moved data fast enough to take advantage of the faster cards?

As to the lens selection - it looks like the 28-135 will by your primary lens. I would opt for a faster lens than the f 3.5 if I could. Price will go up some but an f 2.8 would be noticeable I my opinion.

[lostdoggy]

That is a really great price but check out Dell for the body its around 1150 after 10% instant and 15% coupon NP7F5MNCM3Z8WQ. They even have the Lense there too. The Ultra II is around $85.

[lancea]

... the link I posted has test speeds for almost all CF cards and the Lexar ranked #2 with the 20D.
Thanks for that link. Intersting, and I assume my 1GB Lexar card must be first edition. I'm also pretty certain that I've read WA isn't used by the 20D. Regardless, I'm more than happy with the speed of the card. Besides, it's got "Professional" in the name ;)

I recently bought a 2GB Lexar 80X, but so far have just used it to transfer PC files with a USB 2 card reader. Beats writing CDs! The price on both cards was I thought pretty competitive.

[vkalia]

If I were you, I'd allocate more of my money towards lenses, and less towards the body. Neither of the lenses you have is wide enough for the sweeping landscape shot. Nor are either of them ideally suited for macros.

I suggest getting the Rebel 350D, the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4, Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the 75-300 IS. That gives you a good set of lenses, the first 2 of which you will not outgrow. Based on your stated needs, the 350D will do just as well as the 20D as far as bodies go.

Also, if you really want to do close-ups, get the Tamron 90/2.8 macro, which is IMO, the best standard macro lens (I have the Canon 100/2.8, FWIW). You can save money by getting the kit 18-55, which is a surprisingly good lens for the price, or the 17-85 IS.

My 1.5 euro-cents.

Vandit

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

HOLY CRAP!!! Lostdoggy, I LOVE YOU! You just saved me about 100 dollars. Thanks so much for that coupon number, and thanks everyone who has posted so far. Vkailia...... I seriously would love to buy the XT and spend more on lenses, but I went to a ritz camera, and spent an hour playing with the 20D and the XT and the XT was far too small for my hands. I hated it. Felt like a little toy rather than a 900 dollar camera. The 20D felt real, solid, professional. And the 5fps wwoooaaahhh druel material. I've already made up my mind on the body. I will not waiver.
Thanks for recommending those Tamron lenses though! I looked into them, and I really like the 17-35mm. Very awesome deal. Then again, I could just hold out, save another 200 and get the canon 17-40mm L. But, for now I might just get the 17-35 Tamron and the canon 75-300mm IS.

Will the 17-35mm Tamron make a good walk around lens? Or is it far too wide?

Oh, and thanks for all the info on the CF cards, I'll look into those.

[Jon]

Lexar's WA is a proprietary technology, available only by license. Nikon's licensed it (well before the D70s, in fact), Canon hasn't, and has no expressed intention of doing so. Accordingly, Canons will take advantage of the faster memory chips in Lexar media, but not the specific WA capabilities.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

What do you all think of the Canon 20mm? 94 degree angle of view. Looks pretty sweet. Probably woulnd't be a good walk around lens though because of its fixed zoom?

[vkalia]

Save yourself some money and stay with the Tamron - I have the Canon 17-40/4L and the only reason I bought that was because I couldnt find the Tamron easily in my little corner of the planet. The Tamron fixed-aperture lenses are gems for the price. They are coming out with some real winners: the 17-35/2.8-4, the 28-75/2.8, the 90/2.8 macro - lens which are pretty much as good as Canon's and a lot cheaper/lighter. At this level, the differences - if any - are only going to be realized if you always use a high-quality tripod+ballhead and blow the prints up to 11x14 or larger.

And if the 20D fits your hand better, go for it. That's a very good reason to get it. Professional feel, however, isnt (in my opinion), especially if you have to sacrifice the quality of the glass. Funnily enough, I find the 20D feels a little cheaply made, compared to the 1D2 and even the old 10D - I've beaten off a pack of dogs with the old 10D+70-200/4 (literally) :)

Re. lenses: with the crop factor, I find that the 17-xx lenses make for better walk-about lenses than the 28-xx, as they give you everything from moderate wideangle to short telephoto. I use it about 90% of the time for travel photography. The 28-xx lenses are simply not wide enough.

Cheers,
Vandit

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, compared to a 1DMk2 I'm sure the 20D does feel cheap! 10D does feel more solid too, but I didn't like the look of the flash.

Anyway thanks for the suggestions. The tamron does look pretty sweet. So does the Sigma 17-35. So many to choose from.

You have the 17-40L canon? Do you like it? Give great photo quality? That's one I was looking at as well.

Thanks!

[vkalia]

Nah, my comments about the 20D are not based on comparing it *only* to the 1D2... the 10D + grip felt like a single unit. I dont get that feeling with the 20D + grip - the grip just doesnt sit as snugly, and I reflexively always find myself fussing with the screw to make sure it is tight.

I have the 17-40, and I am very happy with the picture quality. I dont do too much architecture, so cannot comment on the barrel/pincushion distortion, but for landscapes, it is pretty much as reputed - super contrasty and sharp. Sample:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3315356

Sigma has some really cool glass, but to be honest, I wouldnt sink large amounts of cash on a Sigma lens due to long-term compatibility reasons. Which is a shame, cos they have some glass I'd love to get!

Cheers,
Vandit

[Phil V]

I might have missed someone saying this but, 28mm isn't really wide enough with the crop. I'd suggest 17-40 (or older 20-35 cheap or kit lens or Sigma 18-50 or Tamron etc.) depends on budget.

Also I personally hate the 75-300, too slow to focus and the IS version is a very highly priced average quality lens, basically £100 lens £300 IS function (UK prices).

The 50mm 1.8 is a must have (low light dirt cheap fab portrait lens), try the 90-300mm which has a genuine USM motor, unlike the 75-300.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks everyone! Based on your comments and my budget I think I'm going to go with the Tamron 17-35, Canon 17-40, and canon 75-300mm IS. It's a good start. I'll buy better stuff as I go.

Is the 75-300mm IS really all that bad though? Because it looks like a good lens to me. Maybe not fast.... I'd go with the 70-200mm f/4, but it doesn't have the reach I need for wild life photography. If I had the money, I'd get the 100-400L cause that's fast, and has great reach, but uhhhhhhhh right now the 75-300 IS looks like the best choice.

[rbush83]

Regarding the 75-300 IS, a better option may be the 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. It is optically superior and has a fast and quiet ring USM focus. The IS of the 75-300 will help when your critter is sitting still, but won't stop subject motion.

[hedphonz]

i missed a lot of shots when i had the 75-300. just cause i was using moving subjects and i wasn't able to focus fast enough on them. though i was able to get really nice pictures through the still life world. so if you aren't using moving subjectsalot then you will be alright.