# What lens should i buy?



## Speedster159

I guess enough about the camera for now.

Out of this... http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

What should the main lens i should get is? I was thinking of...

"EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS"
"EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III" *(Not Image stabilized. do not want)*
"EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II"
or
"EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS"

I DO want to buy multiple lens...

For example i bought a 60D body for $889.99 or if i bought a T2i/550D for $579.99. What lens and/or lenses should i buy? *AND* A max budget of 1.2k - 1.3k *(Brand new body price)*

I literally have 30 tabs open, on cameras, lens, and 1 for OCN. I would probably buy it overseas, ship it to a family member, and make him/her bring it back here when he/she comes back home for a visit.

*(I am still torn if i should buy a 60D or 550D and if i should buy it refub, 2nd hand, or brand new.)*


----------



## ljason8eg

I'd start with the 18-55 and 55-250. Maybe throw in a 50 1.8 as well. No need to spend a ton on lenses when you're just starting. That'll give you a nice range of focal lengths to work with, and the optics on those lenses are decent. Once you shoot for awhile you'll know if you need a different lens.


----------



## aksthem1

I agree with ljason8eg. Those three lenses are a good starting point for beginners.


----------



## Speedster159

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ljason8eg*
> 
> I'd start with the 18-55 and 55-250. Maybe throw in a 50 1.8 as well. No need to spend a ton on lenses when you're just starting. That'll give you a nice range of focal lengths to work with, and the optics on those lenses are decent. Once you shoot for awhile you'll know if you need a different lens.


You basically said what lens you have... Well... gonna need more input thou.


----------



## MistaBernie

Just because it's "basically' what he has doesn't make it a bad recommendation. In the last year, I've had my hands on more low-mid budget glass than most (see the story of my gear at the end).

The quality of images compared to the cost of the lenses (18-55 and 55-250) is pretty strong -- they are pretty much the best 'value' lenses to be had in what you listed. Both lenses are stabilized (though you shouldn't really need it for 18-55, but it's a nice feature to have). The fact that the focal lengths line up perfectly and allow for no overlapping makes them slightly more efficient. The build quality is pretty good for these lenses and for the cost. These will be great for starting out, and if you really want to add something that adds versatility on a low budget, the 50 f/1.8 is great to throw in. It allows in a stupid amount of light and can create excellent quality images for an exceedingly low cost (used ones can be found for ~$80-$90 in fantastic shape).

When I got my T1i last March, I had the kit lens on it and used just it (the 18-55) for a year. I had a 75-300 but I used it once and hated it. Then, this March came the cascade of turnover -- T1i became a 60D (I was OK with the upgrade at the time, it made me get really used to the xxD ergonomics) and the lenses became a EF 17-85, 28-135 and 50 f/1.8. I pretty much immediately sold the 17-85 (I got it as a partial trade for something else) - it was, in actuality, a great lens, but I found myself using the 28-135 so much more that I didn't justify keeping it. From there, to be honest, I dont exactly recall how I got to my current kit (I know I bought a couple of Sigmas, 17-50 2.8(which is an amazing normal zoom by the way, albeit slightly pricy) and a Sigma 10-20, both of which were sold/traded (hence where the 85 f/1.8 came from). Bought and sold a 70-200 F/4L and then bought the 2.8.


----------



## ljason8eg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> You basically said what lens you have... Well... gonna need more input thou.


Yes, that happens to be two of the lenses I have. They're great for beginners and I haven't felt the need to sell them off yet, so I still have them. I've used over a dozen different lenses on my cameras and those three I mentioned are the best price/performance you're going to find. Sure they're nowhere near the best, but you likely do not want to be dropping thousands of dollars on lenses when you're just starting out. That would be foolish.


----------



## BlankThis

35mm f/2

Start with that and see if you're always wanting to go wider then look into wider lenses, or telephoto if you need more reach.


----------



## sub50hz

Buying more kit just for the sake of.... what again? You've only said you want to own multiple lenses, but haven't given any indication _why_. 18-200 is a one lens solution for people who don't need the hassle or weight of carrying multiple lenses.

Buy the 55-250 if you absolutely must have a second lens, but only because it's so inexpensive (not to mention it's optically much better than the shelf price indicates). Ask yourself what gear you _need_, not what you think you want. That's a dangerous road to go down, and more often than not it boils down to a mediocre photographer owning a ton of great kit.


----------



## DUpgrade

Got my wife the Canon Rebel T3i and it comes with the EF 18-55mm for starters. I got her the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS telephoto zoom lense for distance and she just got the 50mm f1.8 macro lense for Christmas for those fine detailed portrait shots. She's new when it comes to shooting but has done some engagement photos for friends of ours. You really can't go wrong with these three.


----------



## Furad

Get a sony alpha body then you won't have to worry about getting a lens with IS.







Sorry, couldn't resist.

That being said, I would start with a 50mm and a zoom. My 50mm has pretty much replaced my kit lens.


----------



## sub50hz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Furad*
> 
> Get a sony alpha body then you won't have to worry about getting a lens with IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.


Sensor stabilization is inferior to in-lens implementations because not only do IS and VR lenses stabilize the viewfinder, they're also much more efficient. The only positive for sensor stabilization is that it works with any lens attached.... for a good stop or 2 of hand-holdability. Peanuts compared to even kit lenses from Canon or Nikon these days. Personally, I don't bother much with IS, I much prefer a tripod for my style of shooting.


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sub50hz*
> 
> Sensor stabilization is inferior to in-lens implementations because not only do IS and VR lenses stabilize the viewfinder, they're also much more efficient. The only positive for sensor stabilization is that it works with any lens attached.... for a good stop or 2 of hand-holdability. Peanuts compared to even kit lenses from Canon or Nikon these days. Personally, I don't bother much with IS, I much prefer a tripod for my style of shooting.


The Sony A55 also employs Sony's Super SteadyShot anti-shake technology, which uses a highly sensitive accelerometer and image sensor shift mechanism to move the sensor assembly itself to counteract camera movement, rather than the more common approach of moving an optical element inside the lens. Sony claims that the Super SteadyShot anti-shake system in *the A55 provides a 2.5 to 4-stop reduction* in the blurring produced by camera shake. Even the lower end of the specified range of effectiveness means a pretty significant improvement in one's ability to hand-hold long exposures.

Personally I use it all the time for low-light shooting even down to half a second exposures.


----------



## Sean Webster

Quote:


> *Personally I use it all the time for low-light shooting even down to half a second exposures.*


No flipping way! Holy crap your hand is steady!










@OP, the 50mm is a great walk around lens imo. I took most of my pics with it myself.









And get a t2i if you are starting out, and a "EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS" will be ok. Better than swapping lenses a lot. I had a 18-55 and a 55-250 and wish i had only 1 lens then.

I say start with a 50mm 1.8 and once you start shooting more then decide on what you want


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean Webster*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Personally I use it all the time for low-light shooting even down to half a second exposures.*
> 
> 
> 
> No flipping way! Holy crap your hand is steady!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @OP, the 50mm is a great walk around lens imo. I took most of my pics with it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And get a t2i if you are starting out, and a "EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS" will be ok. Better than swapping menses a lot. I had a 18-55 and a 55-250 and wish i had only 1 lens then.
> I say start with a 50mm 1.8 and once you start shooting more then decide on what you want
Click to expand...

I just snapped one at .6. Will upload in a bit.


----------



## nderscore

1. If build quality is your utmost concern:
60D + 50mm f1.4 + sandisk 16gb extreme hd video

2. If you want bang-for-the-buck (studio):
T2i w/ 18-55mm + sandisk 16gb extreme hd video + two each of (yn560 speedlight + westcott collapsible umbrella + manfrotto 5001b + cactus v5 radio triggers + eneloop AA and AAA batteries + umbrella adapter)

3. If you want walk-around bang-for-the-buck:
T2i + 35mm f2 + 430EX II + eneloop AA batteries + sandisk 16gb extreme hd video

Reasoning:
1. The 60D gives you better ergonomics with features such as independent shutter and aperture dials plus an articulated screen (very handy for composing at odd angles and when you're in front of the camera). However, this option cuts the remaining budget devoted to lenses. If you think you'll be heavy into videography, then the standard 60D kit w/ 18-135mm lens is also a viable option.

2. If you plan to shoot primarily product/studio work, then option 2 provides you with the greatest creative potential. The standard 18-55mm is very versatile and the 55mm end has enough reach for indoor work. However, this option isn't very mobile and will not be for you if you plan to shoot most of your stuff outdoors. Why no tripod you might ask? Well, I believe if you get a tripod, you should get a good one. Unfortunately, I don't think you can fit one into your budget unless you cut something else out; though, the speedlights should freeze your image for you, so a tripod isn't mandatory (the dolica proline series is a good affordable option).

3. With a crop sensor, 35mm is very close to the human eye perspective, so your pictures will "look" just right. Paired with a 430EX II, I believe this option gives you the best launching pad. You start at a baseline, like BlankThis' recommendation, and choose your next gear from there.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean Webster*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Personally I use it all the time for low-light shooting even down to half a second exposures.*
> 
> 
> 
> No flipping way! Holy crap your hand is steady!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @OP, the 50mm is a great walk around lens imo. I took most of my pics with it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And get a t2i if you are starting out, and a "EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS" will be ok. Better than swapping lenses a lot. I had a 18-55 and a 55-250 and wish i had only 1 lens then.
> I say start with a 50mm 1.8 and once you start shooting more then decide on what you want
Click to expand...

Here you go, I took this one last night @ .8 seconds. It's a tiny bit OOF but not bad for such a long exposure.


----------



## Sean Webster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nderscore*
> 
> 1. If build quality is your utmost concern:
> 60D + 50mm f1.4 + sandisk 16gb extreme hd video
> 2. If you want bang-for-the-buck (studio):
> T2i w/ 18-55mm + sandisk 16gb extreme hd video + two each of (yn560 speedlight + westcott collapsible umbrella + manfrotto 5001b + cactus v5 radio triggers + eneloop AA and AAA batteries + umbrella adapter)
> 3. If you want walk-around bang-for-the-buck:
> T2i + 35mm f2 + 430EX II + eneloop AA batteries + sandisk 16gb extreme hd video
> 
> Reasoning:
> Hope this helps!


THIS! ^

# 3 Is the best for a beginner imo, or get a sigma30mm f/1.4 instead of the 35mm f/2.0...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Furad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sean Webster*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Personally I use it all the time for low-light shooting even down to half a second exposures.*
> 
> 
> 
> No flipping way! Holy crap your hand is steady!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @OP, the 50mm is a great walk around lens imo. I took most of my pics with it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And get a t2i if you are starting out, and a "EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS" will be ok. Better than swapping lenses a lot. I had a 18-55 and a 55-250 and wish i had only 1 lens then.
> I say start with a 50mm 1.8 and once you start shooting more then decide on what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go, I took this one last night @ .8 seconds. It's a tiny bit OOF but not bad for such a long exposure.
Click to expand...

Dang, I thought it would look a lot shakier. You have a good hand!


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean Webster*
> 
> THIS! ^
> # 3 Is the best for a beginner imo, or get a sigma30mm f/1.4 instead of the 35mm f/2.0...
> Dang, I thought it would look a lot shakier. You have a good hand!
> .


It would be shaky without the IS. But thanks!


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean Webster*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Personally I use it all the time for low-light shooting even down to half a second exposures.*
> 
> 
> 
> No flipping way! Holy crap your hand is steady!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@OP, the 50mm is a great walk around lens imo. I took most of my pics with it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> And get a t2i if you are starting out, and a "EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS" will be ok. Better than swapping lenses a lot. I had a 18-55 and a 55-250 and wish i had only 1 lens then.
> I say start with a 50mm 1.8 and once you start shooting more then decide on what you want
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this. I haven't taken my 50 off since I got it.


----------



## Speedster159

I will consider the previous replies... One more thing...

I'm a general blogger, and i need a all-around lens/lenses I'm not only going to do photography, but i'm also going to focus alot on videos...

The events i go to might...

Need me to shoot in extremely low light.
Shoot fast objects (cars, drifting, track, ect)
Me needing to zoom in alot, cause i'm so far from the subject and i have no other choice but zoom.


----------



## MistaBernie

Well.. if you want to shoot fast in low light, you have a couple of options.

Get a high quality zoom to cover you on the low side that's relatively fast (Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 would probably be best), or go 50mm f/1.8. The Sigma is a fantastic lens; if I didn't want all of my lenses to work on both my 5D and 7D, I would have kept it in a heartbeat, but its not designed for full frame.

In terms of a long zoom for low light, on a budget, there really is no such thing. 55-250 is OK, but on the long end the minimum aperture is 5.6, and that's really not low-light friendly.

The only reason my suggestion above deviates from the original list is A) because its' within the system the OP is looking to buy, and B) they're some of the best options for what the OP is apparently wanting to do.


----------



## nderscore

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> I will consider the previous replies... One more thing...
> I'm a general blogger, and i need a all-around lens/lenses I'm not only going to do photography, but i'm also going to focus alot on videos...
> The events i go to might...
> Need me to shoot in extremely low light.
> Shoot fast objects (cars, drifting, track, ect)
> Me needing to zoom in alot, cause i'm so far from the subject and i have no other choice but zoom.


Your needs are hard to fit with your budget.

However, I think there are a few options.

1. T3i + 18-200mm + YN560 + 4 AA Eneloops + Sandisk 16gb xtr. hd sdhc
The T3i gives you the articulated screen (I personally find this to be extremely handy when shooting video as you can shoot from the hip without breaking your neck). The 18-200mm gives you the reach needed to shoot faraway and the zoom range that covers most of the bases. However, this setup is a bit lacking in low light situations; though, the YN560 flash is there to mitigate this issue. If you need to shoot in low light, but can't use a flash, then the next option might be better for you.

2. T2i + sigma 30mm 1.4 + 55-250mm + Sandisk 16gb xtr. hd sdhc
The sigma 30mm 1.4 serves your low light and video work duties. The 55-250 will give you that much needed reach. If you can tack on another $110 to this combo, then I suggest picking up the T3i just for the articulated screen.


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Furad*
> 
> An OVF doesn't make one camera better than the other *because it's personal preference.* .


In regards to your Sony > Nikon + Canon statement, I'll just quote and bold one of your own posts.

And for OP's use, I third the 50mm f/1.8 and 55-250mm IS. As far as a low-light zoom goes, you're a bit out of luck there. The best you can do is a standard zoom with constant f/2.8 aperture, like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, or a very expensive tele like the 70-200 f/4L or f/2.8L. If low light is an issue and you can't mount a prime like the 50mm f/1.8 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on your camera, then the only other option I see is a flash.


----------



## BlankThis

I'm going to side with Sub here and say that at almost any price point there is not _clear_ superior camera from any of the major manufacturers. So with this in mind I agree in saying it's a ridiculous bias to say that Sony is the best option at this price point.

Moving on!

I'm in agreement with getting a good quality fast prime (30, 35, 50, etc.) as your first lens because it will force you to think more and in my experience improve your photography. Also if it's something that you end up getting serious with, you will most likely end up with these primes in your kit anyways. Mind you I do have a bias against zooms since I only shoot primes on film and digital.


----------



## Furad

[quote name="BlankThis" url="/t/1192645/what-lens-should-i-buy/30#post_16077395"*]I'm going to side with Sub here and say that at almost any price point there is not clear superior camera from any of the major manufacturers.* So with this in mind I agree in saying it's a ridiculous bias to say that Sony is the best option at this price point.
Moving on!
I'm in agreement with getting a good quality fast prime (30, 35, 50, etc.) as your first lens because it will force you to think more and in my experience improve your photography. Also if it's something that you end up getting serious with, you will most likely end up with these primes in your kit anyways. Mind you I do have a bias against zooms since I only shoot primes on film and digital.
[/quote]

I think it's pretty clear that below $700 the a33/35 is superior. Higher IQ, more dynamic range, auto HDR, phase detect AF even in video, 7fps, in body IS, in camera panoramic, wireless flash controller etc.. I'm seriously not trying to be a fanboy, these are just facts. If you want a Canon or Nikon in this price range that does less then that's your choice.

Personally, I like bang for the buck.

EDIT: Even the OP is having to worry about getting IS lens... That's just another + that I don't even have to think about that.


----------



## BlankThis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Furad*
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that below $700 the a33/35 is superior. Higher IQ, more dynamic range, auto HDR, phase detect AF even in video, 7fps, in body IS, in camera panoramic, wireless flash controller etc.. I'm seriously not trying to be a fanboy, these are just facts. If you want a Canon or Nikon in this price range that does less then that's your choice.
> Personally, I like bang for the buck.
> EDIT: Even the OP is having to worry about getting IS lens... That's just another + that I don't even have to think about that.


OK if you want to play that game...

The fact of the matter is:

1. In-lens IS is proven superior to the in-body IS
2. All those features come at a price *cough* build quality *cough* ergonomics *cough* focusing system
3. Smaller lens options in comparison to Canon or Nikon


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BlankThis*
> 
> OK if you want to play that game...
> The fact of the matter is:
> 1. In-lens IS is proven superior to the in-body IS
> 2. All those features come at a price *cough* build quality *cough* ergonomics *cough* focusing system
> 3. Smaller lens options in comparison to Canon or Nikon


Quick google search found this -

It looks like Sony's SSS may be better than the IS in some Canon lenses, too.

For example, dpreview.com's test of the A550 with it's 18-55mm kit lens showed that 70% of it's shots were still sharp at 1/15 second on the 55mm end of the Sony 18-55mm kit lens, and roughly 60% were still sharp at 1/6 second, while still able to get 30% of it's photos sharp all the way down to 1/4 second.

Yet, if you look under their lens reviews for the Canon 18-55mm IS lens, it was down to 60% of it's photos in the sharp category on the long end of the lens by the time you got to 1/13 second, and down to around 20% of it's photos in the sharp category at 1/6 second (where the Sony A550 still had 60% of it's photos in the sharp category). They didn't test it at slower shutter speeds (or if they did, they didn't publish the results).

IOW, the Sony A550 still had more photos in the sharp category at both 1/8 second and 1/4 second compared to Canon 18-55mm IS lens at 1/13 second (the Sony in body system in models like the A550 using a 18-55mm kit lens is more than a stop better than the Canon 18-55mm lens with IS built into it from tests I've seen). Both of these systems (Canon lens based stabilization, and Sony body based stabilization) outperformed the Pentax SR body based system by a pretty good margin in more than one test (tests done by Amateur Photographer Magazine and stabilization tests performed by dpreview.com in their camera/lens reviews).

But, again, different lenses may have different characteristics.

As for your 2nd point, what's wrong with sony build quality?

and your 3rd point, do you really think someone can't get what they need out of the 100 or so available lenses for sony A mounts?


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Furad*
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that below $700 the a33/35 is superior. Higher IQ, more dynamic range, auto HDR, phase detect AF even in video, 7fps, in body IS, in camera panoramic, wireless flash controller etc.. I'm seriously not trying to be a fanboy, these are just facts. If you want a Canon or Nikon in this price range that does less then that's your choice.
> Personally, I like bang for the buck.
> EDIT: Even the OP is having to worry about getting IS lens... That's just another + that I don't even have to think about that.


Actually, yes, you are trying to be a fanboy.

Let's break this down:

Higher IQ: Subjective. What metric are you using to judge IQ? I've looked at a33/a35 reviews and pics myself. Noise doesn't start to show up until around ISO1600, but Sony also has to apply aggressive noise reduction early, losing detail. If you mean how resolved the images are, I find very minute differences. There is no day and night difference.

More Dynamic Range: Again, very minute differences, no day and night winner.

Auto HDR, pano: Not everyone needs this. Personally? I'd rather stitch together images myself. I really hate these automatic features and view them as gimmicks more than anything.

Wireless Flash Controller: Don't recall the OP mentioning he wanted to do flash photography. Useful to have, but needed? Not by a longshot.

7FPS: See comments for flash controller

In body IS: What BlankThis said.

My point being: Every person has their own camera preference. Some cameras are better suited for your tastes than others. I personally prefer Canon because Nikon, when I was getting into DSLRs, lacked AF motors on their value primes, and no other manufacturer had a nice prime library like Canon did. Sony obviously suits you more than Canon or Nikon.

No one is saying that you made a bad choice going Sony, but honestly? You are coming off not only as a huge fanboy but as someone who absolutely *does not understand photography* when you start talking about absolutes, "This camera is better than anything else, period." It makes as much sense to me as people arguing over what band/artist is "best".


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *r31ncarnat3d*
> 
> Actually, yes, you are trying to be a fanboy.
> Let's break this down:
> Higher IQ: Subjective. What metric are you using to judge IQ? I've looked at a33/a35 reviews and pics myself. Noise doesn't start to show up until around ISO1600, but Sony also has to apply aggressive noise reduction early, losing detail. If you mean how resolved the images are, I find very minute differences. There is no day and night difference.
> More Dynamic Range: Again, very minute differences, no day and night winner.
> Auto HDR, pano: Not everyone needs this. Personally? I'd rather stitch together images myself. I really hate these automatic features and view them as gimmicks more than anything.
> Wireless Flash Controller: Don't recall the OP mentioning he wanted to do flash photography. Useful to have, but needed? Not by a longshot.
> 7FPS: See comments for flash controller
> In body IS: What BlankThis said.
> My point being: Every person has their own camera preference. Some cameras are better suited for your tastes than others. I personally prefer Canon because Nikon, when I was getting into DSLRs, lacked AF motors on their value primes, and no other manufacturer had a nice prime library like Canon did. Sony obviously suits you more than Canon or Nikon.
> No one is saying that you made a bad choice going Sony, but honestly? You are coming off not only as a huge fanboy but as someone who absolutely *does not understand photography* when you start talking about absolutes, "This camera is better than anything else, period." It makes as much sense to me as people arguing over what band/artist is "best".


I'm just trying to stick to facts. IMO you have to weigh personal preference and features. One camera might be better than another because of personal preference. But on the issue of numbers and features, obviously 1 is better than another.


----------



## Monocog007

I have the t2i, and let me tell you it is a phenomenal beginners camera. I used the CLP and got it with a 18-55mm IS kit lens for $550 shipped. I also purchased a 50mm 1.8, and a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. The 75-300 is a piece of garbage and not worth anyone's time. The chromatic abberation is absolutely horrendous. Thats my 2 cents.

I'd recommend the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS from personal experience. It's a great versatile lens.


----------



## sub50hz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Furad*
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that below $700 the a33/35 is superior. Higher IQ,


Ok, so let's break this down, objectively.
Quote:


> more dynamic range,


Than what? A T2i? Yes, it does. Apx. 1EV, which is easily recoverable in RAW processing or by using HTP.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/716|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/698|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/645|0/%28brand3%29/Canon

But what does that link _really_ tell us?










Clearly, the a35 has a larger DR until about 640ISO, where it is ousted by both the T2i and D5100 (and quite mightily by the latter across the board). So if you're a low-ISO landscape shooter that doesn't care to work in RAW format, the a35 may be the better option in _that regard_.
Quote:


> auto HDR,


Could be useful if you're an HDR junkie, I suppose. Software and technique (exposure blending) trump this, IMO.
Quote:


> phase detect AF even in video,


PDAF in video isn't going to be putting any focus pullers out of jobs, and you still have the issue of focusing noise being captured by even an external mic. Sony's SSM drive is still audible, as is Canon's USM, et al.
Quote:


> 7fps,


And how deep is the buffer? Not only that, but the EVF presents a timing issue, where the actual shot is _behind_ (in regards to capture time) the displayed image. It is marginal, of course, but that small margin may make or break a great action photo.
Quote:


> in body IS,


Useful if you don't use a tripod, although the verdict is still out on whether it's better than in-lens stabilization -- this not only refers to its actual effectiveness in the final image, but it doesn't stabilize the finder, which is a HUGE negative if you're a telephoto shooter or expect exact framing.
Quote:


> in camera panoramic,


Just like every other camera body with this option, it still shows ghosting from mismatched images.
Quote:


> wireless flash controller


Useful if you're a flash user, but then why make such a big stink about sensor stabilization?
Quote:


> etc.. I'm seriously not trying to be a fanboy, these are just facts. If you want a Canon or Nikon in this price range that does less then that's your choice.


We still have the issue of lens quality/availability, and the MP industry has pretty much solidified Canon as the #1 for HDSLR video capture. Did they use any Sony cameras in _any_ recent Hollywood title? My guess is no.
Quote:


> Personally, I like bang for the buck.


And, clearly, you're the precise demographc Sony wants to sell to.
Quote:


> EDIT: Even the OP is having to worry about getting IS lens... That's just another + that I don't even have to think about that.


IS is useless for some people, and not desirable in some situations, It is certainly not the end-all feature that you are implying.


----------



## Speedster159

Is mid-range or cheapest 50MM from cannon going to do the job for low light? Using ISO instead of flash?

And if i'm going to use flash, what should i buy? Preferably from Canon and can keep up with the burst rate of the 60D.


----------



## ljason8eg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> Is mid-range or cheapest 50MM from cannon going to do the job for low light? Using ISO instead of flash?
> And if i'm going to use flash, what should i buy? Preferably from Canon and can keep up with the burst rate of the 60D.


50 1.8 should be fine for a beginner. I seriously would stay away from the Canon 50 1.4 unless you buy a used one that you know focuses correctly. There's also the Sigma 50 1.4, but again, focusing problems are common. Possibly even more common than with the Canon 50 1.4.

There is no shoe mounted flash that can keep up with the burst rate of the 60D. That being said, you want something that allows you to bounce flash and has a decent amount of power. I'd go with at least a 430 EX II. There are also cheaper third party brand flashes as well, but I have no experience with them.


----------



## Speedster159

o.o I missed out on alot of posts... Been watching DigitalRevTV...

Aren't all flashes shoe mounts? o.0


----------



## Furad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> o.o I missed out on alot of posts... Been watching DigitalRevTV...
> Aren't all flashes shoe mounts? o.0


They are, but they have the ability to be mounted in a stand for much more versatile lighting. In some cases you have to also use a wireless radio to control your flash off the body.


----------



## ljason8eg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> o.o I missed out on alot of posts... Been watching DigitalRevTV...
> Aren't all flashes shoe mounts? o.0


AlienBees are marketed as flashes.


----------



## Speedster159

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Furad*
> 
> They are, but they have the ability to be mounted in a stand for much more versatile lighting. In some cases you have to also use a wireless radio to control your flash off the body.


Okay.. But don't they have a stand? Or i could just do it ******* style...


----------



## Speedster159

...

I think i'm going with a... Brand new...

60D
18-135mm
50mm
Lens hood x2
UV Filter x2
Some speedlight flash
Canon Bag
32GB SDXC Card

Optional...

Battery Grip
Extra Battery
18-55mm

I wonder how much thats gonna cost..


----------



## BlankThis

Sounds like a good start!


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> ...
> I think i'm going with a... Brand new...
> 60D
> 18-135mm
> 50mm
> Lens hood x2
> UV Filter x2
> Some speedlight flash
> Canon Bag
> 32GB SDXC Card
> Optional...
> Battery Grip
> Extra Battery
> 18-55mm
> I wonder how much thats gonna cost..


Some things to note:

-There is absolutely no point in getting both the 18-135mm and 18-55mm. They're both general use zooms with one having a longer reach than the other. Buying both is simply a waste of money, period.

-Just in case you don't already know: Lens hoods are specific to the lens. So there's a lens hood model made for the 18-135mm and there's one made for the 50mm.

-Personally, I'd look into two cards instead of one. I feel safer with 2x 16GB cards than a single 32GB card. Reason being is if something were to happen in the field (card dies, I lose the card, etc.), not only will I lose all my photos, but I'd have no media to shoot on anymore.


----------



## illum

Good choice, although you have 2 lenses that cover the same focal length without offering anything more than versatility.

I would suggest getting differing focal lengths so you can get creative and make use of your money.


----------



## Speedster159

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *r31ncarnat3d*
> 
> Some things to note:
> -There is absolutely no point in getting both the 18-135mm and 18-55mm. They're both general use zooms with one having a longer reach than the other. Buying both is simply a waste of money, period.
> -Just in case you don't already know: Lens hoods are specific to the lens. So there's a lens hood model made for the 18-135mm and there's one made for the 50mm.
> -Personally, I'd look into two cards instead of one. I feel safer with 2x 16GB cards than a single 32GB card. Reason being is if something were to happen in the field (card dies, I lose the card, etc.), not only will I lose all my photos, but I'd have no media to shoot on anymore.


I do know about the lens hood.

Hmm.. 2 cars eh?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *illum*
> 
> Good choice, although you have 2 lenses that cover the same focal length without offering anything more than versatility.
> I would suggest getting differing focal lengths so you can get creative and make use of your money.


What do you mean? What lenses?


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> What do you mean? What lenses?


What I mentioned earlier: The 18-55mm and the 18-135mm. There is no point in buying both.


----------



## illum

Yeah I'd suggest either a 18-55 and a 50mm prime or maybe a 70-200 something like that but I suggest you just get whatever kit lens you get with the 60d and upgrade as you need to.

50mm you can buy off the bat because it's so cheap although it becomes 80mm on the crop bodies (1.6x)


----------



## Speedster159

The thread has been edited...

I refreshed and it showed page 7 blank..

So i need a prime and a zoom?


----------



## Speedster159

Bump.


----------



## ljason8eg

You don't necessarily _need_ both, but most people have both for different situations. Zooms are more versatile since you can change focal length without changing lenses. Some zooms also have Image Stabilization, whereas with primes you don't get IS until you get into the long telephoto/super telephoto range. Primes generally have better image quality, and have wider apertures, meaning they're better for low light conditions and subject isolation. However, you're stuck at a single focal length, so that can be very restrictive depending on the conditions.


----------

