equipment advice

[timberghost72]

I currently have a Canon XS with kit lens and the kit 55-250 lens. I am now looking to upgrade since Uncle Sam was kind enough to give me back some money this year. I was looking at the 7D but now am looking at the 60D and using the difference in price for some lenses. Here are the lenses I am looking at. I have maybe $2000.00 total to spend.

Canon 10-22
Canon 17-55 f2.8 is
Canon 24-105 f4
And eventually a 70-200

Sigma 17-50 f2.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
These 2 cuz they are cheaper. Thoughts on these?

Suggestions on which way to go? I am leaning towards the Canon 17-55 for the low light and indoor capabilities but wish it had more zoom. I figure i can get the 10-22 later for landscape.

[JohnVH]

I recommend fast glass with IS if you can afford it. 

[quadrafire]

It all depends on what you want to do (shoot). I have that 55-250 as well, since I picked up a 70-200 f4 it hasn't been on my camera.
In fact the 70-200 has hardly been off my camera. I have the 7D. More features than I know what to do with. I think you are doing the right thing by getting  the cheaper body and putting the $ towards glass. (wish I would have)
I haven't used the others that you posted, but have heard lots of good things about the 17-55 and the 10-22. I'm sure others more experienced will chime in.

[timberghost72]

Right now i am shooting some landscape, nature, structures like buildings, bridges etc. Family and general stuff. Also some abstract artsy stuff and eventually when i can afford it wildlife with the bigger lenses.

[huntnphool]

 Unless you need video I would go with a 50D rather than the 60D. I really like the 10-22mm for wide shots but use my 17-55mm IS for most of my landscape images.

 The 70-200mm is a nice flexable lens, if you plan on using it indoors then I would suggest the 2.8 over the f4. If you are going to use it outdoors then the f4 will likely be all your going to need, you would probably not be shooting wide open, f2.8, on critters outdoors anyway. Couple it with a Canon 1.4x for a little more reach and you have some added flexability and only lose one stop.

 As far as the non Canon lenses, I'd avoid them if possible. Spend the money on quality pre owned Canon glass and you will not lose much money down the road if you ever decide to sell them to move up to the next lens.

 Pope did a great write-up on Canon lenses and posted it on huntfishnw, worth the time to go through it. http://www.huntfishnw.com/index.php?topic=908.msg8690#msg8690

 Attached landscape images are with a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, the critter shots are with a Canon 70-200mm f4 IS + Canon 1.4x on a Canon 20D

 Click on the image name for best quality viewing.
 

[timberghost72]

Yeah I'm not interested in video. Seems thats where they're going with cameras nowadays. Isn't the 50D discontinued so I'd have to buy used? Maybe I read that wrong somewhere? I will check on that. I don't have a problem with used stuff just leary of buying something like a camera or lens from someone I don't know and taking the chance of it having a problem. Would the megapixel difference be much of a concern from 15 to 18? I have heard lots of good things about the 50D but they're a bit more $. Good tips on the 70-200 too. Thanks. Those are some great pics too Phool.

Other than video why the 50D over the 60D?

I did read and print out that write up that pope did. Its great and where I got a lot of ideas from. I'm just limited on funds so just want to get the best setup I can at this point and build on that.

Also every time I see the 17-55 2.8 it says it fits the 40d, 30d, 20d and rebel series only. Is that right? Shouldn't it fit the 50D, 60D and 7D also. Maybe this is just a dumb question

If anyone has suggestions on sites that you trust buying used that would help too. I do know about Adorama. Any others?

[huntnphool]

Isn't the 50D discontinued so I'd have to buy used? Maybe I read that wrong somewhere?

Also every time I see the 17-55 2.8 it says it fits the 40d, 30d, 20d and rebel series only. Is that right? Shouldn't it fit the 50D, 60D and 7D also. Maybe this is just a dumb question

 You are correct that its not being made, there are lots of great deals on 40D and 50D on Craigslist. Buying pre owned is the way to go if you check out the gear well. You save lots of money and lose little when selling again.

 Its the full frame cameras that the 17-55mm is not compatible with, maybe you got it confused with the 5D?

 

[timberghost72]

$1,179.00 Reg. Price
$1,099.00
 
$80.00 Instant Rebate

 
Add to Wish ListMfr. Part: 1242B002    SKU: CA1755U
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for for 40D, 30D, 20D, & Digital Rebel Cameras Only - U.S.A. Warranty

This is what I was talking about. Seen it in alot of ads. This one is from Adorama. I just thougt it strange is all.

Thought I had the camera figured out and not the lenses. Now I'm looking at the 50D and I think I am making this more difficult than nesessary 

[huntnphool]

 I have no idea who wrote that add but the 50D is compatible with all EF and EF-S lenses.

[Smokepole]

I shoot a 50d.  I chose it over the 7D.  I didn't want video for my camera.  To me that's like buy a dvd player with a bagel toaster built in, or a table saw that converts into a drill press.  50d is an awesome, no frills body.  You might try finding a newer used body and get some killer lenses to go with it & still stay in your budget.  There is a lot of high quality pre- owned stuff.  I bought a canon 70-200 from a pro photographer who used it for one shoot, then decided to buy a different lens.  Saved about half on it.

Another lens I have is the Tamron 28-70, and I have had great luck with it.  I still don't have a wide angle lens, but will look for one in time.

Good luck. 

[timberghost72]

So what makes the 50D better than the 60D? I am comparing side by side specs and besides the obvious like video and articulating screen there isn't too much. I see its a bit larger, magnesium body, lower ISO capabilities and lower Megapixles. Is picture quality better (low light and normal light)? More intuitive? Better controls?

Just looking for real world experience so I can make a realistic choice. I was dead set on the 60D but now not sure. I did see a 50D with less than 500 clicks for $750.00 on CL today. A new 60D is $999.00 with $100.00 rebate right now.

Thanks for all the help so far.

[huntnphool]

 Unless you are planning on blowing up your images the size of a poster, you won't see a difference in the pixel rate so don't worry about that.

 The magnesium body will hold up better if you plan on packing your camera on hunting trips, this to me is a big factor.

 The controls are going to be very similar, minus the video obviously.

 High ISO noise likely wont be a factor since you will be shooting ISO 800 or less 95% of the time.

 50D takes CF cards rather than SD cards, SD cards are typically slower.

 The 60D RAW format will require a significantly newer software than the 50D to process, this could be an additional $200 or so when adding up the differences.

 I'm not going to try to talk you out of buying a 60D but since you asked for advice I'm just throwing my  out there. You admit the difference between the two is likely $200-$300 more, if you are not concerned with video then I would put the extra money saved buying the 50D into one of the lenses. $300 will make a bigger impact into the glass on your shooting than on the camera, add the extra for newer post processing software and you are talking about a Canon 70-200 without IS and one with IS.

 If I was just starting out I wouldn't even be looking for a 50D, I'd be going with a 40D and stepping up on the glass.

[Smokepole]

Very true, Huntnphool.  Nothing wrong with  40d, especially if you can find one without much use.  $750 for a 50d is a bargain, though. 

The all of the cameras mentioned will take great shots, and if you're just starting out, you will have lots to learn no matter which body you end up with.  You can take really crappy shots with the fanciest cameras.  I remember when the rebel 350d came out and everyone was so hyped up about it.  A dsl for under a thousand, and it took great pictures.  I bought two of them.  Still have one for a backup, and it still is a great little camera.  It is the glass that makes the difference, though.  You have to have really good lenses.

Canon keeps coming out with new stuff.  Lots of guys want new camera bodies, and are suckers for the latest models that come out.  It's still the glass that matters most.

[huntnphool]

 Couple pretty good deals on CL right now

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/2928258387.html

Canon 70-200mm f4 IS http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/2929236924.html

[timberghost72]

Those are good deals 

It looks like my plans have changed. Damn bills come out of nowhere. 

I am going to keep my Rebel XS body for now and work on learning exposure more and just look for 1 good lens probably the 17-55 f2.8. That would be a good starter general lens. Hopefully I will be able to upgrade the body and work on the other lenses soon.

[adam]

I really like the 50 mil 1.4 lens.  Fast, sharp, and relatively inexpensive.  It is the only lens I have, but it works great for me. 

[huntnphool]

I am going to keep my Rebel XS body for now and work on learning exposure more and just look for 1 good lens probably the 17-55 f2.8. That would be a good starter general lens. Hopefully I will be able to upgrade the body and work on the other lenses soon.

 Learn the relationship between ISO, aperture and shutter speed, and how they effect each other.

[popeshawnpaul]

Get a 7D, 17-55, and call it good.   

[timberghost72]

Get a 7D, 17-55, and call it good.   

Got the 17-55 on the way.   Now who want to let me "borrow" the 7D 

[huntnphool]

 You will love that lens, I use mine all the time.

[CastleRocker]

Huntnphool covered all the info, (and after seeing the pics he and others on here post, I take his word as the gospel truth).  I would like to add one thing though.  I had both the IS L series 70-200's and ended up selling the f-4 and kept my 2.8 to compensate for the loss of stops when using a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter behind it.  The 2.8 is a bit heavier, but I've always been able to hold a heavy rifle steadier than lightweight one, so I don't mind.

Hopefully someday I'll find that legendary money tree and be able to afford a great big white prime lens, but until then, I'm stuck with crop-frame sensors and teleconverters.