[JAMIN]

I am making the plunge and buying a Canon 400d - my 1st Digital SLR. I previously owned a Canon EOS 650. I have a 70-210mm lens from my old 650 but this lens is now some 10 years old (although in very good condition).

My question is do I purchase the 400d as a body only & buy a lens(es) seperately or do I go for one of the kit lenses & then look to purchase better lenses in the future?

I will be using the camera to take photos both indoors & out, of people and scenary.

Any advice is greatly appreciated!

[iGiDK]

I got a 400D recently with the kit lens (18-55mm) which will be useful for landscapes and general walkabout stuff

The first additional lens I bought was the Canon 50mm F1.8 mkII and for about £70ish this is an absolute gem!

Not going to recommend what you should do but here's what I've got planned!

Next purchase will definitely be a Canon 70-200mm F4 L, after that possibly a Canon 17-40mm F4 L to replace the kit lens for landscape stuff

The kit lens gets a lot of stick but I've no issues with it so far, and would recommend it based on the fact you don't have to spend a lot of additional money to get it (400D + Kit Lens is only about £40 more than the 400D Body Only)

The Sigma 18-50mm lens is meant to be superior to the Canon Kit Lens so that may be worth investigating as an alternative.

For lens reviews and user opinons I always check:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
or
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

For some sample images, scroll about two thirds of the way down this page to the lenses section:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon

[PeaJay]

lol... that's a very slippery slope you've just stood on!
I'd be tempted to get a body and go for the USM version of the kit lens
I have a 350d with the kit lens, and its a little cheep feeling
I have a canon 70-200 zoom, and a Sigma 10-20 wide andle to complement my kit lens... so i can go from 10 all the way up to 200! with a little overlap on each lens.

I'm just starting to play with the wide angle - but it looks like I'm going to have fun with it. the 70-200 is very sharp and is a lovely lens (I'd like to get a Image Stabilised lens or a L... but the financial controller would start to have kittens if i suggest any more purchases

[senu]

Buy the Camera with kit lens ( its cheap enough and is far from rubbish) . it will allow you use the camera, get used to its controls and capabilities ( beyond the marketing hype) and then save up unless you want to buy lenses straight away. If it is anything like the 350D you will love it although it is not an upgrade (as such ) for a 350D owner apart from compulsive "upgradits"

The subjective "must haves" Lenses are an inexpensive Canon 50mm prime ( always value for money) , a 70- 200 zoom. and some say a 10- 20 mm sigma , or 17-85mmIS canon

The 17-85 does cost about £350- 400 but easily makes the Kit lens redundant.

Remembering Battery grip, ( + extra battery) , Ext Flash gun ( the Sigma DG 500 super is great value if you dont feel you just must have a Canon), A few decent big capacity compact flash cards (with that 10Mp cmos ).
And a decent Bag.
The last bit( non lens shopping list) was added to inject a dose of reality into the issue of buying the camera body only , then lenses.

Oh budget too for online ( or high St ) printing or an inkjet, paper and inks!1 Need I say more??
May be...just play the lottery tonight!!

Spend wisely as it seems to carry on .... and on ....
HTH
Good luck

[BananaTiger]

I'd say go for the kit lens as well. It's a really cheap lens and probably wide enough for your landscapes and enough zoom for portraits. And the with the Canon 70-210mm you already have having an EF-mount (according to here), you'll be sorted out for your telephoto work as well.

[dave_bass5]

Heres my take on it.
The kit lens is great and well worth getting for now but you will out grow it.
you will start to want other lens's soon.
I would not get the lens but get the body for as little as you can(£489 max) and then get a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. why? because its cheap and very sharp. covers an ok range and is good for lowlight shots (to a point) is good for throwing the background out of focuse so its good for portraits, its light and i had one.
Of course this will depend on what you want to shoot as its not really wide angle and the reach isnt great but the IQ is outstanding and much better than the kit lens.
If you want wider than 28mm the the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is as good in every way, maybe even a bit sharper.

Im only say this from experience. i too had the kit lens, then got the Canon 50mm f/1.8II (another great lens) and over 18months ended up with 6 lens's at one point. at least two covering each range but over lapping.

All IMHO of course

[mark800]

I'd go for the kit lens (it's cheap!).

Then, go for the Canon 50mm f1.4 USM lens (about £230). This is a fixed lens but the image quality is exceptional and will provide results rivalling zoom lenses that cost much much more. It will give you an early sense of what the camera is capable of without breaking the bank. Looking at the reviews, many people use that lens (even professionals) a large proportion of the time.

[senu]

Even the sub £80 Canon 50mm F 1.8 EF lens is a well made prime to supplement the kit lens.
By the time you buy 2-3 lenses you would have paid more than the body cost 2x over.
If you want to buy time to save up and still enjoy the camera in the mean time , remember that cards, a Bag, flash gun are impt accesories as well which will still be needed after all those lenses have been bought.

[JAMIN]

Thanks for all your advice, it helps if creating a few more questions!

In terms of budget I have around £650-£700 for everything, however I already have a good bag so that is one less thing.

My exisiting Canon Lens is an EF 80-200 1:4.5-5.6. Therefore I will hold fire on purchasing a replacement for this until I have seen how it works.

In terms of flash, do I assume the built in one isnt very useful?!

[senu]

Originally Posted by JAMIN

.....Thanks for all your advice, it helps if creating a few more questions!
....In terms of flash, do I assume the built in one isnt very useful?!

It is useful for fill-in and reasonable distance photos and is certainly handy when there is no time to attach an external unit but in a dark(ish) room with subjects at a distance it will struggle .
An external flashgun while not "essential" is not a luxury for such situations

[JAMIN]

Thanks again.

Any recommendations on good value flash guns? I'm looking at spending less than £100 if possible (if not cheaper!).

Also I have seen an offer for a Tamron 55-200m F/4-5.6 Di II LD Macro Lens for £79. This seems a very good price to me, any ideas how well the lens performs?

[Messiah]

Loads of reviews online here

Here are the conclusions from a Bob Atkins review.

The Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro is clearly aimed at a narrow - but significant - market segment. That's the people who have bought a DSLR with an included 18-55mm "kit lens" and now find that they'd like something longer than 55mm. Now some people won't blink at paying hundreds of dollars (if not thousands...) for fast, "L" series glass, and some won't mind carrying lenses which are significantly larger and heavier than the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro. However there's certainly a good number of new DSLR owners who will be looking for something small, light and fairly inexpensive, and the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro fits that bill. It's only a fraction larger than the EF-S 18-55 and I'd expect it to retail somewhere around $170 at reputable discount stores. On a Canon Digital Rebel XT or 20D, a 200mm lens has the same "reach" (field of view) as a 320mm lens has on a full frame 35mm camera, and that's enough for many users.

Optically, at 55mm the lens is certainly better than the Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 (which is where the EF-S lens is weakest). Both center and corner sharpness are good, especially if you stop down to at least f5.6. At 100mm center sharpness is good, but corners are soft wide open and don't fully sharpen up until the lens is stopped down to f8. At 200mm center sharpness is again good and the corners somewhat softer. Some chromatic aberration (CA) is visible at longer focal lengths but it's pretty well controlled (the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro does use one LD element to better control CA).

Overall the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro makes a reasonable companion to an 18-55. It's optically decent, if not outstanding, especially when stopped down to f5.6. It would be expected to give good 4x6 and 5x7 prints, but at 8x10 and up, especially in the corners wide open, it's not going to be as good as a more expensive lens.

Obviously for around the same price you could get something like a Canon EF 75-300/4-5.6 III USM [though note that this is a different lens from the 70-300/4-5.6IS lens used in the comparison testing here and does not have UD glass]. The choice here then depends on whether the gap between 55mm and 75mm would bother you, and whether you want to carry around a significantly larger lens in order to cover the 200-300mm range. Neither lens is likely to satisfy the highly critical users, but both are pretty good value for the average photographer who is mainly interested in smaller prints.

[senu]

Originally Posted by JAMIN

Thanks again.

Any recommendations on good value flash guns? I'm looking at spending less than £100 if possible (if not cheaper!).

Any "digital" flashgun will work Jessops was £65 seems to have gone up in cost .
I would however stretch that budget to £140 for the Sigma EF 500DG super

It will work with Canons ETTL-II electronics, can be a wireless slave or master ( has a wireless transmitter and reciever) and is cheaper than even Canons (Slave only) Speedlite 430ex

[JAMIN]

Thanks for all the advice.

I have decided on the following:

Canon 400d + 18-55 Kit Lens - £550 from Waltersphotovideo but includes a 1GB memory card

Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk2 - £69

Sigma EF500DG Flash - £96

Plus one of the following:
Sigma 70-300mm - £100
Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro - £120
Tamron 55-200mm - £72

Any thoughts/comments on which is the best option?

I then need another 1gb card plus a bag! Any further suggestions most appreciated!

[senu]

Your Shortlist is so far seems sorted
I dont know any of the Tamrons but Ive heard only good things about them all so Ill let others who have used it comment.

Just 2 points:
1)Dont expect to use the kit lens as your general purpose lens for long (although you are certainly on the right track to get it first ) .
Just use it to get used to the camera and get savvy with it: I used my ( kit lens with the 350D) for only 6 months and have never mounted it since getting the (admitedly much costlier (Non L) 17-85 IS) which I now also use with the 30D.

2)The cost of Cards is such that a 2Gb card ( as little as £25 ) for a 10MP camera is not unreasonable and youll be happier you have it when you start shooting RAW ( as you will, sooner rather than later! )

All the best with your purchases :
You can certainly get all the bits in stages before inclement weather stops you from enjoying outdoor photography this year

[JAMIN]

Thanks again.

I'm off to Australia in December for a month so will be looking at testing out my kit lens there. Also I want to have my telephoto lens by then.

Is it worth getting the 50mm Canon lens before I go?

Is it better to have 2 seperate 1GB cards (in case of problems) or a single 2GB card?!

Any recomendations on a decent bag for no more than about £20-30?

Also what filters/polarisers would you suggest/recommend?

[dave_bass5]

I really cant decide about the CF isssue.
My feelings are that if i have my 4GB card in my camera, the dust stays out, the contacts dont get bent and i knonw where the CF card is.
I had two 2gb ones before and because one was out of the camera i lost it. plus i didnt like having to open the camera to change the cards more often.
Saying that i can also see that if the 4gb card goes "funny" i could loose all the shots.
But so far in 5-6 years of using CF i have not had a bad card or even an error on one.

[JAMIN]

In that case I think I will go for an 2GB card rather than 2 1GB.

I was looking at the Sandisk Ultra III Compactflash but are any of the other brands (or the Ultra II) worth looking at?

[h4rri]

IF you are going for a month I'd suggest more cards. You can get 450ish shots [jpeg] on a 2Gb card. Do you have the facility to download the photos to a laptop etc there? If not you will need alot more storage

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by JAMIN

In that case I think I will go for an 2GB card rather than 2 1GB.

I was looking at the Sandisk Ultra III Compactflash but are any of the other brands (or the Ultra II) worth looking at?

All my cards are Kingston Elite pro's. i have 512MB, 1GB, 2GB and a 4GB
Not had any problem with any of them. They seem to be cheaper than the Sandisk's
Speed isnt a big issue in camera but it shows when you do to download the shots ot a PC. I think my slowest is 45x.

you could also reduce the image size in camera to get more jpg's on a card if you know you wont be needing to print large.

[JAMIN]

Sorted! So i have now got my camera & memory sorted out, now just to decide on which of the lenses to buy before I go! Please help with advice/reviews/recomendations/horror stories etc!!!

- Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk2
- Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro
- Tamron 55-200mm
- Sigma 70-300mm
- Canon EF 75-300/4-5.6 III USM

[iGiDK]

Which Sigma lens are you interested in?

SIGMA 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG MACRO (about £100ish)
or,
SIGMA 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO (about £160ish)

As far as I'm aware there is a huge difference in quality between these two lenses.

The common consensus (I believe) is that the Sigma 70-300MM APO is superior to the Canon zoom lens you've mentioned, and is roughly on par with the Tamron 70-300 (don't hold me to that though!)

[dave_bass5]

Out of the three zooms i would (and did) do for the Sigma 70-300APO. its got good reviews and is cheaper than the Canon. it doesnt have USM but i find as long as im not trying to focus from one end to the other its quick enough. Ive not tried the Tamron but every Tamron i have owne has been good.
One thing to watch for is the minimum focus distance. i know that when i have my Sigma one i have to stand quite a bit further away than i would normaly, just to get it to focus.
The 50mm f/1.8II would be useful for indoor, low light shots although i found it a bit long and got a Canon 35 f/2.0 to replace it. but it costs a bit more (ok, over double) but you cant go wrong with the 50mm f/1.8II
One other lens i would recomend, and one that you could keep on the camera a lot of the time is the Canon 28-105USM MKII. its cheap but very good. mine was sharp at all apatures (although a bit of PP is always required), its small, close focusing and quite fast at the long end (f/4.5)

Have a good trip

[Jazz Monkey Jr]

Originally Posted by JAMIN

In that case I think I will go for an 2GB card rather than 2 1GB.

I was looking at the Sandisk Ultra III Compactflash but are any of the other brands (or the Ultra II) worth looking at?

Ultra II is just as fast as the Extreme III in camera, it is just an issue when trasnsferring using a card reader.

[JAMIN]

As regards the Sigma either/or, I dotn mind paying the extra £50 for a better product!

I notice you have the Canon 50mm on your 400d, how is it?

[Jazz Monkey Jr]

The 50mm is a great lens, for the 350 or 400D, I use it a lot, I try not to use the kit lens and will be getting rid when I get my 24-105.
With it being fixed it is very sharp and a bargain for £70ish, and the 1.8 is great for portraits.

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by Jazz Monkey Jr

The 50mm is a great lens, for the 350 or 400D, I use it a lot, I try not to use the kit lens and will be getting rid when I get my 24-105.
With it being fixed it is very sharp and a bargain for £70ish, and the 1.8 is great for portraits.

I see you have the 24-105L already in your sig
couldnt wait eh
I got mine a month ago and its been on my camera almost since day one.
Well, at £699 you want to get the most out of it.
Getting a 30D today, got fed up with the noise in my 400D shots.

[Jazz Monkey Jr]

I ordered it a couple of weeks ago, they should be coming in stock next week.
I am happy with the 350D for now, but this lens deserves better.

[JAMIN]

If the Canon 28-105USM MKII is a very good chepa lens, would it be worth getting just the 400d body (no kit lens) and then purchasing the 28-105USM?

I know I would be losing between 15-28mm but I'm sure I will get by until I purchase a wide angle lens.

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by JAMIN

If the Canon 28-105USM MKII is a very good chepa lens, would it be worth getting just the 400d body (no kit lens) and then purchasing the 28-105USM?

I know I would be losing between 15-28mm but I'm sure I will get by until I purchase a wide angle lens.

I would say yes based on the fact that you are ok with loosing the wide end but i know lots of people will say you do need wider. its your choice but i could live with that. i got my 28-105 about a week after i got my 350D kit and never used the kit lens again. mainly because i didnt find i needed that wide. i have since got the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and although i love it i still dont use it much as i prefer the longer reach of 105mm
It could just be that i grew to live with 28mm as the widest i could go. certainly since i got my 24-105L i have got used to 24mm and it makes a small difference over the 28mm but again, i couldnt live without a bit of reach on the long end.
I think as you get used to your camera and shooting you will want to get other lens's and you will then find they start to overlap each other, you can then end up with unused lens's.
The kit lens wont add much to the camera and may come in very useful in the future. its not the quality but the range and speed you might find limiting.