| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/14/2003 09:58:50 AM · #1 |
Hello All 10D'ers
I just can´t wait any longer, I am loosing sleep over not having a 10D.
This will be my first SLR so I am studdying lenses and such.
Think my fyrst lens will be Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM please comment on my choise if you think I am doing wrong there.
My googling and price comparing shows that if I get the lowest price for the camera and lense, it will round of like this:
Body - $1300
Lense- $870
-----------
= $2170
Does this sound about right?
Have you found it cheaper?
Should I look into buying a cheper lense or from a different vendor like Sigma?
Please help me out here...
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 10:01:36 AM · #2 |
That sounds about right.
You can always buy cheaper lenses. you tend to get what you pay for though and particularly if you go for really cheap lenses, you'll find your very expensive camera system produces not very good pictures.
The picture is only as good as the lens you take it with, the rest of the camera is less important, so lenses isn't the best place to cut the costs.
This does not mean you have to have $2000 L class lenses to take good pictures with a 10D, but at the extremely cheap end, the poor quality of the lenses is pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 10:04:57 AM · #3 |
I think you're good with that body/lense setup. I have an EOS Elan II film camera and that was my startup lense as well.
The price you found for the lense is high. In Canada it sells for $729 which would put it around $500 US give or take a few dollars.
Check out //www.henrys.com . The price for the lense there is $525.15 US.
Message edited by author 2003-08-14 10:07:06.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 10:05:46 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by finnur:
Hello All 10D'ers
I just can´t wait any longer, I am loosing sleep over not having a 10D.
This will be my first SLR so I am studdying lenses and such.
Think my fyrst lens will be Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM please comment on my choise if you think I am doing wrong there.
My googling and price comparing shows that if I get the lowest price for the camera and lense, it will round of like this:
Body - $1300
Lense- $870
-----------
= $2170
Does this sound about right?
Have you found it cheaper?
Should I look into buying a cheper lense or from a different vendor like Sigma?
Please help me out here... |
$1300 for the body sounds very reasonable. I got mine for $1475 here in HK after much bargaining. As for the lens, I have a very basic one by Canon (28-80mm) which the dealer snagged from one of the kit boxes intended for the EOS 66. It works perfectly well, and quite cheap too at $115. So if you'd like to start off with a lower budget, just get the 28-80mm (3.5-5.6 aperture) and you'll do fine. You won't go wrong with this ... the focusing is amazingly fast, faster than D100.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 10:21:04 AM · #5 |
Found the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lense for $525 on henrys.com
So now we are down to:
Body - $1300
Lense- $520
-----------
= $1820
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 10:38:35 AM · #6 |
How low can you go...
This must be the lowest price for the lense: Caonon EF 28-135 .. on Adorama.com
Body - $1300
Lense- $399
-----------
= $1699
Message edited by author 2003-08-14 10:38:57.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 10:46:12 AM · #7 |
| I know a lot of people have started with the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. Remember the 1.6 multiplier, makes this a 45-216mm. A real plus on the telephoto side, but not much on the wide. I started with the 24-85mm USM which gives a 38-136. Still not great on the wide end, but a little better. In either case you are really going to enjoy it. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 11:31:31 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by chalcone:
$1300 for the body sounds very reasonable. I got mine for $1475 here in HK after much bargaining. As for the lens, I have a very basic one by Canon (28-80mm) which the dealer snagged from one of the kit boxes intended for the EOS 66. It works perfectly well, and quite cheap too at $115. So if you'd like to start off with a lower budget, just get the 28-80mm (3.5-5.6 aperture) and you'll do fine. You won't go wrong with this ... the focusing is amazingly fast, faster than D100. |
Just a comment - I'd avoid the 28-80mm. It gets universally derided as the worst lens that Canon makes and would really represent a huge waste of money (because you'd have spent all that money on a 10D body then crippled it with a crap lens)
//www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 11:32:48 AM · #9 |
Hi Finnur,
I bought this from B&H
Body - $1499
Lense- $400
-----------
= $1899
Got it to Sweden and everything went just fine. But check out the taxes first. I had to pay about $500 in taxes and $80 for shipping. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 11:34:49 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by chalcone:
$1300 for the body sounds very reasonable. I got mine for $1475 here in HK after much bargaining. As for the lens, I have a very basic one by Canon (28-80mm) which the dealer snagged from one of the kit boxes intended for the EOS 66. It works perfectly well, and quite cheap too at $115. So if you'd like to start off with a lower budget, just get the 28-80mm (3.5-5.6 aperture) and you'll do fine. You won't go wrong with this ... the focusing is amazingly fast, faster than D100. |
Just a comment - I'd avoid the 28-80mm. It gets universally derided as the worst lens that Canon makes and would really represent a huge waste of money (because you'd have spent all that money on a 10D body then crippled it with a crap lens)
//www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html |
It isn't that bad. Besides, it's just $115 for goodness' sake. Triple the price for the next best thing.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 11:35:40 AM · #11 |
All Day Digital has the body available for 1278 including tax and shipping. :)
(This is like limbo now...how looowwwww can you gooooo)
1278
399
-----
1677
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 11:37:08 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by chalcone:
It isn't that bad. Besides, it's just $115 for goodness' sake. Triple the price for the next best thing. |
Why does it make sense to spend $1500 for a great camera and put a cheap lens on it ?
It is about as sensible as putting recycled 2CV tires on a porsche.
A complete false economy and wastes the large investment on the body in the first place.
If you want to use $100 optics, buy a $300 camera. It doesn't make sense to buy a crap lens that you'll just want to replace in a few months with something that costs 3 times the price - you just throw awaw $100 that way. It isn't like I'm making a completely subjective comment here - it is measureably bad. If you want to buy a cheap lens, get the $60 50mm f1.8 prime. It'll be sharper than any zoom lens you can buy under $800 and has great low light performance due to the huge aperture.
Message edited by author 2003-08-14 11:38:43. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 11:41:28 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by chalcone:
It isn't that bad. Besides, it's just $115 for goodness' sake. Triple the price for the next best thing. |
Why does it make sense to spend $1500 for a great camera and put a cheap lens on it ?
It is about as sensible as putting recycled 2CV tires on a porsche.
A complete false economy and wastes the large investment on the body in the first place.
If you want to use $100 optics, buy a $300 camera. It doesn't make sense to buy a crap lens that you'll just want to replace in a few months with something that costs 3 times the price - you just throw awaw $100 that way. It isn't like I'm making a completely subjective comment here - it is measureably bad. |
You are far too sold on what you hear. I can still make good fotos with the "Crap" lens you're whining about. If I want to spend more, then I will. But I don't have to because I'm content with what I have. I'm not about to buy for the sake of matching the gears everyone else thinks is great. It's whatever works for me that's more critical. It's a bonus too if I have it cheap.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 11:47:48 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by chalcone:
You are far too sold on what you hear. I can still make good fotos with the "Crap" lens you're whining about. If I want to spend more, then I will. But I don't have to because I'm content with what I have. I'm not about to buy for the sake of matching the gears everyone else thinks is great. It's whatever works for me that's more critical. It's a bonus too if I have it cheap. |
I'm not telling you what to buy. I'm suggesting that someone who is about to spend about $1500 on a DSLR shouldn't make a false economy and get a cheap lens. I've shot them side by side with better quality lenses on my D60. The difference is obvious. I'm not whining about it. I'm not telling you what to do. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 12:34:19 PM · #15 |
Hey, Finnur, ... I would stick to that 28-135 USM is lens...
I like mine a lot, the only thing that will bug you is that in low light you will have to boos up your ISO
I got this stuff from //www.bhphotovideo.com in NY...
perfect there no problems, don't know about the current price though...
for you english speaking... i'm just going to talk about the sales taxes and tol fees in Iceland, so don't be grumpy...
Reyndu lÃka að fá einhvern til þess að skreppa með þetta à gegnum tollinn, ég sparaði mér rúmlega 50.000 kall á þvÃ, tók reyndar 2 mánuði, en það er samt ágætis tÃmakaup ...
pakkinn kostaði à kringum 170.000 kall, þessi linsa, vélin, 1gb mÃkródrif, aukabatterÃ, taska og sky light filter...
virðisaukinn à tollinum er 24,5% sem er nú slatti, reyndar erum við svo heppin að vera laus við tolla á ljómsyndavörum...
sendu mér endilega Ãmail ef þú vilt vita nánar hvernig ég gerði þetta...
heyrumst svo bara. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 12:45:49 PM · #16 |
Get the 24-70L for $1200.
Oh, and don't buy from Adorama. They'll usually make you talk to a whiney sales droid, who will want you to buy $40 lense cleaner, before they process your order. And stuff. //www.bhphotovideo.com is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 01:06:01 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by chalcone:
It isn't that bad. Besides, it's just $115 for goodness' sake. Triple the price for the next best thing. |
Why does it make sense to spend $1500 for a great camera and put a cheap lens on it ?
It is about as sensible as putting recycled 2CV tires on a porsche.
A complete false economy and wastes the large investment on the body in the first place.
If you want to use $100 optics, buy a $300 camera. It doesn't make sense to buy a crap lens that you'll just want to replace in a few months with something that costs 3 times the price - you just throw awaw $100 that way. It isn't like I'm making a completely subjective comment here - it is measureably bad. If you want to buy a cheap lens, get the $60 50mm f1.8 prime. It'll be sharper than any zoom lens you can buy under $800 and has great low light performance due to the huge aperture. |
I agree.
Have had that advice from others....
Dont spend big bucks on a camera if you can´t get a good lense with it...
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 01:46:45 PM · #18 |
Gordon's right -- if you want good zoom lenses, prepare to spend the dough. There is a huge difference between my 20-35 mm USM versus the 70-200mm L, not a small difference, a HUGE difference. Even the $60 50 mm prime is better than the 20-35 mm USM, which is actually not a cheap lens at $400. In contrast, the 17-40mm L F4 is $800, and the 16-35mm L is $1300. You get what you paid for. You dont' get the great contrast and color rendition that you get from the L lenses versus the consumer zoom lenses, and contrast determines sharpness more than just the resolution line charts.
Otherwise, use primes, they'll be sharper than most zooms and sometimes even sharper than L lenses. Tests have shown that a 50 mm F1.8 II ($60ish lens) is sharper than a $1300 24-70 mm F2.8 L @ 50 mm. Primes are generally sharper than zooms.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by chalcone:
It isn't that bad. Besides, it's just $115 for goodness' sake. Triple the price for the next best thing. |
Why does it make sense to spend $1500 for a great camera and put a cheap lens on it ?
It is about as sensible as putting recycled 2CV tires on a porsche.
A complete false economy and wastes the large investment on the body in the first place.
If you want to use $100 optics, buy a $300 camera. It doesn't make sense to buy a crap lens that you'll just want to replace in a few months with something that costs 3 times the price - you just throw awaw $100 that way. It isn't like I'm making a completely subjective comment here - it is measureably bad. If you want to buy a cheap lens, get the $60 50mm f1.8 prime. It'll be sharper than any zoom lens you can buy under $800 and has great low light performance due to the huge aperture. |
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 01:51:29 PM · #19 |
Lenses are an investment that will last you even after you upgrade your camera body as technology marches on. Don't cheap out on lenses.
If you can't afford good, high-quality zoom lenses, another option is to buy high-quality primes. The beauty of a DSLR is interchangeable lenses -- why buy just one "mediocre" zoom lens and leave it on like it was a point-and-shoot?
The $70 50mm f/1.8 lens is extremely sharp for the money. And you'll learn a lot about photography by having to "zoom with your feet". And you can blur backgrounds with ease with that large f/1.8 aperture! |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 01:53:29 PM · #20 |
I have purchased from Adorama on several occasions. I've always gotten a good price, and I just say no to their rediculous accessories offers. You have to know what you want to pay for something, though. They may have the best price on one item, yet another may be 20% higher than everyone else. Don't just add a few things to your cart thinking they must have decent prices on everything!
It is a good, honest place to make purchases, as long as yuo have to ability to say no to their add ons. If you can't say no to a salesman, then the quote below is good advice. Otherwise, they are reputable and a good vendor to use.
JD Anderson
Originally posted by chrisab:
Get the 24-70L for $1200.
Oh, and don't buy from Adorama. They'll usually make you talk to a whiney sales droid, who will want you to buy $40 lense cleaner, before they process your order. And stuff. //www.bhphotovideo.com is the way to go. |
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 02:37:21 PM · #21 |
I don't fully grok why you'd (not YOU in particular, but people in general..) find it acceptable to be forced to listen to a sales pitch in order to get your stuff. This is especially true if you prefer ordering over the net instead of by phone. The one and only time I ordered from adorama I placed my order on the net, 2 days later a sales guy called me at home, the next day I called him back, the day after that my order shipped - 4 days after I placed it.
It would be one thing if they had crazy money saving deals, but in most cases their prices are the same as B&H (occasionally a little more, occasionally a little less). But B&H just packs up and ships what you ask for, when you ask for it. No muss, no fuss, no bitter aftertaste. And they ship via fed-ex saver, which rocks - way faster than UPS.
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I have purchased from Adorama on several occasions. I've always gotten a good price, and I just say no to their rediculous accessories offers. You have to know what you want to pay for something, though. They may have the best price on one item, yet another may be 20% higher than everyone else. Don't just add a few things to your cart thinking they must have decent prices on everything!
It is a good, honest place to make purchases, as long as yuo have to ability to say no to their add ons. If you can't say no to a salesman, then the quote below is good advice. Otherwise, they are reputable and a good vendor to use.
JD Anderson
Originally posted by chrisab:
Get the 24-70L for $1200.
Oh, and don't buy from Adorama. They'll usually make you talk to a whiney sales droid, who will want you to buy $40 lense cleaner, before they process your order. And stuff. //www.bhphotovideo.com is the way to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
08/14/2003 04:02:32 PM · #22 |
Few weeks now...I'm waitlisted for a September start on a masters program, and if I don't get in I'm buying the 10D to console myself. My first lens will be the 50mm 1.4 as I find I tend to use my legs as a zoom. I really like available-light photography and figure the 1.4 will help in that department. That, and the build quality and the option of the full-time manual zoom. After that, 70-200mm F/4L (once the Visa has had time to gasp) and maybe next year either a wide prime or the 17-40 F/4. I like the idea of primes, though.
For anyone interested in a 1.4 vs 1.8 comparison, photo.net has a good side-by-side article posted here:
50mm 1.4 vs 1.8
Team 10D here I come...
James. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 05:37:07 PM · #23 |
| Thanks for the link on the lens comparison. I have been wondering if the 1.4 was worth the extra $$. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 05:57:29 PM · #24 |
I plan on using it a lot. More than image quality (which isn't much different) I'm concerned with durability. That, and I can share filters with my F717.
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Thanks for the link on the lens comparison. I have been wondering if the 1.4 was worth the extra $$. |
Message edited by author 2003-08-14 17:59:48. |
|
|
|
08/14/2003 09:23:40 PM · #25 |
James,
Thank you indeed for the link. I had not really considered the 50mm prime seriously, but the 1.4 looks to me like a very useful tool on the 10d, being that it equates to 80mm it would be a decent portrait lens, and the wiiiide aperture would be great for controlling DOF.
I was not totally convinced that an extra $200 over the 1.8 was really worth it until I looked athe the HUGE difference in contrast in his flare test shot. Wow. The image from the 1.8 was unusable, while the 1.4 produced a beautiful image.
I too am a great fan of available light photography, and I will look seriously at this lens.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 05:53:08 PM EDT.
