Good camera?

100mm is for closeups of coral or other *macro* work.
50mm is for fish and general purpose.

The 50mm is SUPER CHEAP. I mean they practically give it away. The 100mm is a pretty high quality hunk of glass.
 
I think the two of those would get you off to a nice start. Of course you will run into situations requiring other lenses. If you can afford it, a 24-70 would be better than the 50mm. A 17-55 IS would be very good with an Xsi as well. *17-55 not 18-55, huuuuuuge difference.* Your will eventually want wide angles and normal lenses and telephoto lenses. Such is life with a DSLR.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14170370#post14170370 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TWallace
I don't know much about Canon DSLRs, but if you go with Nikon, I'd avoid the D40 and D60. They both lack an autofocus motor (which means some lenses won't autofocus, like the incredibly good and cheap 50mm AF 1.8) and bracketing. Bracketing may not be missed by most people, but if you ever get into HDR, you'll miss it. I'd get the D90, D80 or D50 instead...

The ability to drive the old AF lenses is costly in terms of size and weight. Unless you have older pro-grade lenses you need to drive or concrete plans to do so, I wouldn't make that feature a deciding factor.
 
Nikon now has a pretty good AF-S and AF-I line-up. The 60mm micro is now available as an AF-S lens. You can go ahead and get a D40 or D60 if that fits your budget better.

Lack of an on-board focus motor was a big deal when they were first introduced, but the lens line-up has gotten substantially better.
 
If I was using a crop sensor camera like an Xsi, I'd save up and pick up the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 100mm macro. Those two lenses should pretty much cover the bulk of your shooting needs. Later down the line if you feel you need a nice telephoto zoom, I'd look at the 70-200 f/4 IS.
 
Back
Top