More lenses or better body?
- Thread starter iriejp1
- Start date
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Re: More lenses or better body?
I hate to say it so bluntly, but you have the worst DSLR you can buy from Canon. I wouldn't recommend an Xs to anyone. You also have some pretty shady lenses. The 75-300 for instance is widely accepted to be the worst lens you can buy for a Canon DSLR. Everyone keeps telling you the lenses are more importiant which is true, but if I was in your position with the worst camera AND the worst lens, I would take it all back and do a lot of homework before I started fresh. That is my (harsh but honest) opinion.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Or Canon Or Pentax Or Olympus Or Sony Or...there are many great choices. I suggest you take back what you have and do a couple months of homework before taking this plunge. There is LOTS to learn. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have, but in my opinion you made an impulse buy and are going to regret it later.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Disregarding the $80 Canon rebate, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 is still $330 cheaper than the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. The Canon is also IMO a superior product. If your going to snub perfection and get a 16-85, you can't compare it to a 24-70 anymore. I would much rather pay the extra $520 and get a lens I feel is worth the difference, but Canon has other lenses to compete with a 16-85.
I'm pointing out that there are other options and that the price difference between the 50D/24-70 and the D90/24-70 isn't that big (and the price comparison was for body+lens, not for the lens alone). Also, if you read Recty's response, he meant to reference the Nikon D300, not the D90 (which does make the price difference greater, in Canon's favor).
I don't see any need for a Canon/Nikon disagreement. They are both excellent cameras with their own strengths and weaknesses. Plus, not everyone starting with a dSLR needs to spend $2K on equipment. You can get a very effective beginner's set-up for around $1K (or even less). This will give you a great tool to learn and to take many great pictures. Once you get past a minimum equipment standard, the quality of a picture is determined by the artistry and skill of the photographer and not by the equipment. If you are just starting off, you don't to spent $1,400 on one lens. That's like telling someone that they can't start a reef tank unless they get a large tank with all the automation and latest 'gadgets'. That turns off beginners and discourages the learning you need to do to develop skill and expertise. I'd rather see someone start with a 29G tank and no sump while they husbandry, etc. Then, if the bug bites, invest the money into a big tank (or better camera equipment).
I don't see any need for a Canon/Nikon disagreement. They are both excellent cameras with their own strengths and weaknesses. Plus, not everyone starting with a dSLR needs to spend $2K on equipment. You can get a very effective beginner's set-up for around $1K (or even less). This will give you a great tool to learn and to take many great pictures. Once you get past a minimum equipment standard, the quality of a picture is determined by the artistry and skill of the photographer and not by the equipment. If you are just starting off, you don't to spent $1,400 on one lens. That's like telling someone that they can't start a reef tank unless they get a large tank with all the automation and latest 'gadgets'. That turns off beginners and discourages the learning you need to do to develop skill and expertise. I'd rather see someone start with a 29G tank and no sump while they husbandry, etc. Then, if the bug bites, invest the money into a big tank (or better camera equipment).
TitusvileSurfer
New member
The quality of a picture is determined by the artistry and skill of the photographer, and LARGELY by the equipment. That is an undeniable fact. No skill won't produce much with a lot of equipment, and a lot of skill won't produce much without the right equipment. Knowing how to use and when to use it is great, but if you don't have anything to use you can only think about what you could do if you had what you needed. Time after time after time I find myself in situations I know I couldn't pull off without my $2000 lens. I don't think anyone else could have pulled it off either.
Last edited:
Pro photographers have taken excellent photographs using cell phone cameras. The D40 routinely produces excellent photos, even with the 'kit' lens. I was at a presentation the other week where the camera 'kit' was a D70 with 18-200mm 'travel zoom' lens; the photographs had won national prizes for their quality.
I agree: sometimes, you need that 'special' lens. But, a beginner can learn lots with a $500 'kit'. And, then they will be ready to take advantage of the special lens.
This is no different from people spending $100's on the latest fancy golf club expecting it will improve their game when what they need is to take some lessons and invest in practice time and stick with their 'cheap' clubs.
I agree: sometimes, you need that 'special' lens. But, a beginner can learn lots with a $500 'kit'. And, then they will be ready to take advantage of the special lens.
This is no different from people spending $100's on the latest fancy golf club expecting it will improve their game when what they need is to take some lessons and invest in practice time and stick with their 'cheap' clubs.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Hehe I'm sorry Nick and Doug. I swear I mean well!
Yes I agree that with perfect conditions you can take an excellent picture up to par with a great lens. Conditions are rarely perfect, and good equipment will leave lesser imitations in the dust. I suppose I am just used to shooting at the extremes where anything less couldn't even compete i.e. night football, indoor basketball, surfing, theater, ect...
If your at Disney World looking for Mickey Mouse at noon, a kit lens would work fine. If your in space mountain, or outside Cinderella's castle at midnight, step aside and wish you had Aladin's genie to grant you what I'm using.
Yes I agree that with perfect conditions you can take an excellent picture up to par with a great lens. Conditions are rarely perfect, and good equipment will leave lesser imitations in the dust. I suppose I am just used to shooting at the extremes where anything less couldn't even compete i.e. night football, indoor basketball, surfing, theater, ect...
If your at Disney World looking for Mickey Mouse at noon, a kit lens would work fine. If your in space mountain, or outside Cinderella's castle at midnight, step aside and wish you had Aladin's genie to grant you what I'm using.
Last edited:
I have the Canon MPE-65, the Canon 180mm f3.5 L macro and the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. When shooting macro I have the autofocus turned OFF on all of them.
By far the easiest to use is the 180, hand held or tripod mounted. The working distance is superb and you can add the 1.4x converter to make it almost a 300mm macro.
The MPE-65 is a specialist piece of kit. The only way I use it is on a focussing rail. It is not as you say a manual focus its a fixed focus lens and the only way to focus it is to move in and out from the subject. Thats why I use a rail.
The MPE-65 needs good light. I use two 580EX flash plus a 420EX as a slave.
I wouldn't recommend the MPE-65 unless you are going to do a LOT of macro work and can aford to kit yourself out with lights, rails, tripods etc.
My recommendation would be the 180, it is a ridiculously expensive lens, but can't be bettered for general macro work.
Absolute Reef
New member
I guess that it's not easy to say or answer the future of what kind of pictures are you going to take? and how often are you going to use them ? ... just leave that for the future.
My answer to this thread is to get your self a good decent body. I think that Nikon D90 or Canon 50D would do a great job for a couple years to come. Get your self a mid range lenses to go with your body and invest some money for a nice decent macro lenses and you are good to go. Your can take fulltank shot, landscape, party shot, group shot, fishes, colony with your mid-range lenses and your macro will help you with macro reef shot, flowers insects etc, and a good macro lenses (f/2.8) can also be used as a portraits lenses as well.
My answer to this thread is to get your self a good decent body. I think that Nikon D90 or Canon 50D would do a great job for a couple years to come. Get your self a mid range lenses to go with your body and invest some money for a nice decent macro lenses and you are good to go. Your can take fulltank shot, landscape, party shot, group shot, fishes, colony with your mid-range lenses and your macro will help you with macro reef shot, flowers insects etc, and a good macro lenses (f/2.8) can also be used as a portraits lenses as well.
RockyMtnReef
Member
These are with the D90 and 18-105. Great camera for a very reasonable price in my option.
Similar threads
