New Camera Question

ngn8dogg

New member
Ive been looking for a new camera and decided to go with the canon xsi . I can get it for $580 plus tax for body alone or 809 plus tax with the 18-55mm IS lens and 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS lens. Im new to SLR's and need to know what you guys think about these lenses and if its worth it to buy the kit or just the body and a good lens? thanks
 
I personally would get the body and a good lens, though that setup would be very cost effective. With lenses you get what you pay for.
 
Last edited:
Titusville, I am looking at the same set up. What would be a good lens for this camera beside the kit? The 55-250 seems to have solid reviews, would you recommend that lens?
 
I have read promising articles about the (new) 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS and the new 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS. I have no personal experience with either one but things are looking up. If you aren't sure whether this photography stuff is something your going to really like, or if you just don't have the money, I would think the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS and 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS route would be just fine. If you are going to use your camera on a regular basis, you likely will soon desire something better and wish you had gotten a 70-200 to begin with.

Now the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS has some reach, but it will need lots of light to feed that hungry aperture. This lens would be a poor performer indoors or early morning/twilight. You will need to be outdoors in bight sun or otherwise use a powerful flash (such as the 430 ex II or 580 ex II...not the one already on your camera) for acceptable results.

From what I have read, I would endorse the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS and 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS to get you started. As you gain valuable experience with these tools, you will build an education and learn for yourself why you need anything better (if) you need anything better. I would not recommend either of these for reef photography however. You should include the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens in your budget for your tanks as well.
 
Last edited:
The canon 70-200 is well over my budget. Is there any other lens that are cheaper that would compare to the canon lens your talking about?
 
The 70-200 f/4 is about $600. My beloved 70-200 f/2.8 IS is about $1,700 and worth every penny to me, as it lets me take acceptable photographs of subjects impossible with anything else. The 70-200 f/4 is still an A-list celebrity though.

Here is an example of an "impossible shot" I couldn't have taken with anything else.
f/2.8 1/10 ISO 3200 200mm IS handheld
_MG_7815.jpg
 
Keep in mind I'm showing off the settings and not the picture itself. I was in an "advanced photography" class field trip when I took this and was the only one out of 10 or so photographers to get a shot where you could even make out his wrinkles. This was an impossible shot for everyone else lined up on either side of me and several of them bought a 70-200 f/2.8 IS because of this shot. Every other lens just showed a blurry mess.
 
Lenses for moving objects ARE super expensive. That is physics. Unless of course I refer to the 50mm f/1.8. This "Nifty Fifty" will take great shots of fast movers...but it is as cheaply made as its desirable price. The thing feels like it will fall apart in your hands, but it will do the job.
 
I think the 50mm f/1.8 would be a great first lens. You can experiment with SUPER fast apertures (and of course shutter speeds). You can experiment with SUPER thin Depth of Field (what is blurry and what is not), and since you can't zoom in or out, you will learn to do so with your feet instead. While it may sound annoying now, this is a great teacher in practice. It is so cheap you really can't slap yourself in the face even if you hate the thing. Once you use it for a few months, you will gain invaluable knowledge and experience, empowering you to decided on your own if you really need an expensive lens or to settle for another cheap one. You won't have to take my word for it anymore.
 
cool Ill try it out. Cant beat the price like you said. And if I dont like it i can dropkick it and wont care :)
 
I'm glad we could reach an agreement. This really is a great starter lens I think, leaps and bounds better than either of the 18-55's as both a learning tool and a practical tool.
icon14.gif
 
Ok so I am going to order the xsi body and the canons 50mm y ou suggested. Since Im spending the money I might aswell buy the macro while Im at it. Would you suggest the Canon 100mm macro or Sigma 105. A couple people recommended to me the Sigma but they also own Nikon d80 and D300 .?
 
In the Nikon world, the Nikkor 100mm macro (which they call a micro :)) costs about $300 more than the Sigma. Hence, many people buy the Sigma instead since it is an excellent lens. For Canon, the Sigma and the Canon lens cost about the same. Plus, the Canon doesn't change length as you focus while the Sigma does. Since both are getting strong recommendations, getting the Canon 100mm makes great sense.
 
I agree, get the Canon. With this lens and the Xsi, you will have one heck of a setup for amazing tank photographs. Having a macro lens that does not rotate or (especially) extend is a great advantage. Later down the road you may purchase add-ons for the front and/or back of the lens. These will increase magnification even further. It helps if the lens isn't getting longer and shorter as you try to focus on an ant 1 centimeter away.

Congratulations on your new (future) setup and may it carry you far. Welcome to Club Canon!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top