Good evening all the photography lovers,

I have a Dilemma now,

If i am going to get the Canon 400d ,
Should i get the kit lens ? or the upgrade 17-85 IS lens ? which most of the shop offers now.

If i get the kit lens, there is very high possibility that i would not get another lens in a year or two, as lenses that are better than kit lens sure cost a bomb to me.
my dilemma, how well is the kit lens performs ? what's its limitation ?
I would be shooting scenery most of the time and people, and sometimes hobbies figures.

Should I get a DSLR where I may not have extra money to buy extra equipments after that ?
Or should I just wait till i got out to work, where i have some extra money to buy extra equipments ?

All inputs are gratefully welcomed,

Have a great day

*mod please move this to suitable place if it is not here, my apologies for that.

hello there...
first of all...if you are going to buy a DLSR...you have to make full use of it...
you must have photography as your hobby...if not...setting it to Auto Mode will do no different with Point and Shoot cameras...
i am a nikonian so i dunno the focal range of the kit lens...
i would like to clear things up here...
lenses that are better than kit lens does NOT mean it is more expensive than the kit lens... diffferent lenses serves difference purpose... for instance a 50mm f1.8 lens is only rm250...i believe that is cheaper and better than the kit lens...just that it serves a difference purpose...
photography is an investment... buying additional lenses a few months after youe SLR camera purchase IS a formality
unless you play to quit photography...that'll be a different story...
good luck making your choice...

u really making me understand DSLR better

thanks for your advice

i was once in your shoes...
do ask if you have any doubts about photography...
all the members here would be obliged to help you out

If you decided to quit, there's a whole lot of guys here who would gladly buy your dslr stuffs (at discount price of course).
*cough*

Stick with groups or find a friend who into photography. Sometimes they will let you burrow their lenses.

I used 17-85. And at the moment it's a good all round lens that suited my needs. Wide enough for scenery and provide good zoom for people shot.
If you had extra money, a flash would be best add on rather than additional lenses.

erm...i think you read my sentence wrongly..it was a continuation of the sentence above

IMO you can't compare a 18-55mm lens with prime lens la. totally different purpose already, how to compare?

anyway for Canon, the kit lens is usually 18-55 EF-S but there are packages with BETTER kit lens such as the 17-85 IS lens.

for newbies, I'd say stick around with 18-55 EF-S first. don't worry about your gear so much, just get a body and the kit lens will be fine. upgrade only when needed or when you wish to play around with more stuff. build your skills / understanding first.



i beg to differ. It depends on the person and his / her choice of shots.

the price of a flash (say a new 430EX) you can get a 70-300mm (with Macro capabilities) and a 50mm f1.8 already, they allow you more variety of shots.

i think im gonna second what goldfries said. in fact, those are the lenses that i have. by having the 18-55mm kitlens, you'll be able to get familiar with scenery, architectural and other shots. then, after a couple months, you might want to learn telephoto, in which a budget 70-300mm lens would be in the range of rm650-750. then, u might wanna play with portrait shots, so you'll add 50mm f1.8 that'll cost you another rm250-300. with those lenses, you'll have a set of lenses that'll enable you to shoot photos in the range of 18-300mm. adding those up together, it's gonna cost you rm1000. as for the flash, you can always stick to the built-in flash first, till you have extra cash. Anyways, if money is really a constraint, the kitlens itself is handful enough.

I'm learning a lot from those set of lenses mentioned. But then of course, i added a 430ex, a manfrotto 190xprob + 484rc2, a tamron sp90 macro, cpl and nd8 filters on top of those within the next 3 weeks. Cannot tahan with all the seductions Photography is a poisonous hobby! Be EXTRA careful!

p/s : Still not done yet.. hunting for camera bags

This post has been edited by lordmint: Nov 3 2007, 02:51 AM

I am kinda confuse with different type of lens number and the f-number.

for eg. u name 50mm f1.8, what does it mean ?

any website for me to look up ??

Thanks alot..

This post has been edited by mindkiller6610: Nov 3 2007, 04:12 AM

the 50mm f1.8 means it has a fixed focal distance at 50mm (but that doesn't mean you're limited to stuff that are 5cm away la, that part i don't know how to elaborate to you) while the f1.8 states it's highest available aperture.

those that can zoom, you'll see numbers like 18-200 , 70-300, 70-200, 18-55, 17-85 or whatever la.

the 50mm is the focal length/distance counted from your lens to sensor, not the distance of your lens to the object.
so 50mm lens doesnt mean it can focus 5cm away, a 90mm macro doesnt mean it focuses 9cm away and so on..

There are a lot of websites on optics theory.
But if you want to just get a 'feel' of what focal length gives you what sort of view, then try this page:

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_cent...-comparison.php

(You can choose between 35mm and 'digital' crop factor; 'Digital' is either the 1.5x or 1.6x extra magnification factor from using the APS-C sensor size)

have u ever considered other brands?

sony and olympus dslr both have great kit lens come together with the package

prime lens like the canon 50mm f1.8 have fixed focal length, hence u cannot zoom in zoom out. you need to move yourself in order to frame your subject. however, the advantage is the sharpness and the accuracy of image due to less complexity in the lens build.

This post has been edited by soulfly: Nov 3 2007, 09:52 AM

am also start with kit lenses, and currently thinking to upgrade my stuff, am not sure what is the price for 17-85 IS lens, but i think you can upgrade to the new 18-55 IS, personally for me, IS is very usefull for me as i usually will shoot more in event, so with low light condition and not easy to carry tripod around, IS helps alot.

For my opinion, play along with your camera function 1st, there are alot of stuff and compo that need to learn, lenses will be an advantage later when you done with ur camera skill, no point getting a good lenses but all the pic come out not nicely expected. But if you got the $$, then you can just ignore

---

Added on November 3, 2007, 10:52 amHi wish to ask Pro opinion here about upgrading lenses, you think is better to buy lenses seperately such as 70-300 and 18-55, 50mm prime ( around RM900 ) or buy a Sigma/tamron 18-200mm ( around RM1700 ) lenses that cover all the range without changing the lenses? am more to shooting an event and personally think Sigma 18-200MM OS would help alot, am also thinking tamron 18-250 that have a bigger range, but after looking at the picture am taken, fell that OS will help alot.. Please advice...


This post has been edited by GoodMorning: Nov 3 2007, 10:52 AM

thats why i said different lenses serve different purposes right
i dont think you should get a flash first... depends on what yu gonna shoot..if you were to shoot landscapes and macros..a flash would do you no good...

if u're looking for something convenient, then the 18-200 would serve the purpose, but bear in mind that these high zoom lenses(usually from wide angle to tele) would also suffer from greater barrel distortion when u're shooting @ wide angle, and also these lenses usually have smaller aperture for example, the 18-200mm would have f6.3 @ 200mm whereas the normal 70-300 would only be around f5 @ 200mm, and when u extend fully to 300mm, the aperture would only be f5.6 which is still wider than the 18-200mm.
Having OS/IS would help to compensate shaky hands, but would not be able to freeze the movements of your subject(small aperture, slow shutter speed), so OS/IS would only be useful if the object that u shoot is static in low light condition. for event coverage, u'll still need wide aperture to shoot properly in low light.
of course if u can afford, wide aperture + stabilizer would be the best..

p/s: i'm not a pro. just a another newbie..

This post has been edited by kevin613: Nov 3 2007, 12:37 PM

thanks for elaborating.

but that's not the part i have problem elaborating. was hoping someone could summarize this one
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/techn...cal_length.html

nmind.



i know you mentioned that but just that prior to that sentence you also mentioned..........."for instance a 50mm f1.8 lens is only rm250...i believe that is cheaper and better than the kit lens"

haha... i should have added that :" i believe its cheaper and better than the kit lens" sentence... you got me sitll reading through the article you posted.. hope could summarize that with my below average english standard..haha...

hehe. one thing about prime lens though is the image quality. being one with fixed focal length means there's lesser glasses involved.

means that better image quality
oh ya..bout the article..thats pure math..you either understand the formula or you just forget bout it...haha...

yes. missed out that sentence - lesser glass involved thus better image quality.

the formula is all given, just that lazy to do la. pointless to do also. good for those who want to know "mm = subject distance" balblabla thing.

lolz...thats kinda like additional knowledge lor... no shortcut for that...gotta read and understand yourself...any news from TS?

soulfly manyak jahat wor.. still mau poison to other brands.. ahahhahaa... my suggestion, get the kit lens, understand everything, then get better lens. tadaaa~

can buy 400D with 40D's kit lens (18-55 IS) ? the new lens has very good comment on it.

haf they started selling dat lens separately ar? by the label, definitely dat 1 is better than the current kit lens jor~

i also wish to have canon eos 400d since i want to take photo wgile traveling
but i am noob on dlsr....
dlsr is better than normal dc,can lasting 2 year if keep upgrading lens
normally for a noob nid how many month to learn it?
any book/website suggest?

This post has been edited by stupid: Nov 3 2007, 08:47 PM

dat, u gotta see which level of noobness r u in.. bwahhahahahahahah. jk~ jk~ ... if photography is ya passion, i reckon u'll stay juz for a short while...

if u're buying a camera for travelling purpose, i do suggest u to start with a PnS 1st, cause who knows, u might not like the bulk of a DSLR and hassle of changing lens after u got 1.. a good PnS can produce equally good photos as a DSLR when u know how to use it properly, but u wont be able to take nice photos if u dont know how to operate a DSLR, cause it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference, not the camera.. and most of the time, u develop the skills/ experience as u shoot, u cant learn how to take nice photos from a book, it's an art, not a theoretical subject. if u're talented, u could master it in weeks, if u're not really into the art of photography, u'll never learn them even if u have the best gears..

the sony kit lens produce amazing colour especially night shots with colourful lighting. oh talking about night shots...the super-steady shot is very helpful also. slightly better range also... 18-70mm

---

Added on November 3, 2007, 11:59 pmsomewhat agree, but a plain compact PnS wont be much fun. i suggest that get a compact digicam that has manual setting to change exposure settings, WB and such... coz dslr is kinda hassle for noobs.

This post has been edited by soulfly: Nov 4 2007, 12:01 AM

first of all,

A MILLION THANKS TO ALL INPUTS !!!

They are really really helpful

I am still deciding...most concern is financial freedom...

soulfly's recommendation is somewhat true.. u may wanna consider those PNS with advance settings (manual modes) to practice b4 jumping into the bandwagon... pssst, Canon SX100is = low price, manual modes, latest model fr Canon... lalala~ (counter attack for Soulfly's initial statement....)

even without manual settings i think it's fine, one could still learn up composition and other stuff with it.

yes dslr IS better than normal PnS...but you must know how to fully utilize it before getting into the world of SLRs...
don just set it to auto mode and go off snapping without knowing what can can it do and WHY is it better than PnS camera...there is really no time limit on how long will a camera last you...it may last you ten years..you never know... talking about skills..there is no time frame on how fast will you master it... just like what kelvin said, if photography is not your cup of tea, you will never master the skills...i took up photography and i jumped straight into the SLR bangwagon... i love photography...thats why i strived for improvement(although still a noob) but i know the basics and learn from others... most importantly, if there is a will, there is a way... don rely on books too much, go out there and snap more pictures... cheers

financial freedom? pay by instalment lar...hehe... at kuching here for 0% interest de ler...your side should have also...

getting DSLR doesn't mean that you'll be constantly upgrading lens though. if you're satisfied with what you have already, then there's no reason to upgrade.

if you're travelling, a DSLR with 18-200 would allow you to compose nicer shots than a DC (P&S) BUT the P&S has it's advantage in size.

EDITED : aiyah refer to that article in my signature la.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Nov 4 2007, 08:34 AM

im pretty sure everybody has a compact camera before they migrated or added an slr camera. if you dont have one yet and you dont know whether you'll like photography in the long run, might as well get a compact first. play around with that first. you must ensure that this urge that you have for photography is long term, not a thing that'll get you interested only for the first month and sits in your store room by the 6th month. Photography can be considered an expensive hobby if you're using SLRs and lenses. Especially with the poisons around during outings, TTs, forums, hehehe..

not everyone la. those years DSLR so expensive, i have to buy compact and prosumer. nowadays DSLR so cheap anyone also can buy.

erm...i didnt have a compact.. i migrated from a w800i to a Nikon d40 crazy me huh...

i migrated from PnS (sony p73) to DSLR (sony a100)
with SE k750i in between ...still a sony lol!

see...every thread i go to you sure promote sony...hehe... they should hire you as full time promoter

don't take those too seriously... just having fun around the threads..lol

btw... not too interested into sales/promote ... prefer marketing, then can apply strategies, more interesting

lolz...you wanna makan many many at one time.greedy...haha...

i got my compact only after getting my DSLR

i don have the budget to get a compact mar...hehe..

i got a compact > prosumer > DSLR and now i'm eyeing out for new compact.

mine was a film compact/fully manual film SLR(without AE and AF), then digital super compact(Casio EX-M1), then compact prosumer then DSLR..

yeah film compact for me too. quite sad when whole roll come out more than 1/2 not usable.

i've tried once where 1 whole roll end up not usable for not loading the film properly into the fully manual SLR..
it's a 1970s OM-1 from Olympus, u need to pull a tab after each shot, and roll back manually after finished each roll..
still play around with it once in a while, the viewfinder is heaven as compared to those DSLR nowadays(unless if u can afford the full frames)..

This post has been edited by kevin613: Nov 6 2007, 01:31 AM

its a must to have anything before jumping into slr type of camera as it is actually normal to have ppl having slr camera but their photography skill does not improve, they will get bored with slr... my opinion only

i use handphone camera first, then have a try on nikon d50