looking to buy a lens.... - DPChallenge Forums

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

07/26/2006 09:00:11 PM · #1

I came across some money and was planning on buying a Canon 350D, but many encouraged me just to go for the 20D, which I am planning on doing. I'm already saving money through an offer by someone to sell me the kit lens for a very cheap price. (don't have to buy the kit then.)

Just wondering if anyone has a lens they would like to sell...something with a little more zoom than the kit lens and a good walkaround lens? I'm not really looking to spend any more than $150, so if you've got a lens just lying around and not being used, please pm me.

Thanks!

faidoi

Pentax K10D

07/26/2006 09:02:31 PM · #2

A good place to check.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/26/2006 09:04:17 PM · #3

3 Lenses

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/26/2006 09:06:20 PM · #4

hmmm, neither of those links seem to be working....come's to a dpc page that says 'invalid request'

DjFenzl

07/26/2006 09:09:02 PM · #5

the buy sell forums are for members only, that's why you can't see them :(

Rikki is selling:
Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF Macro ($325)
Canon 70-200 f4L ($495)
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical for Canon ($275)

Personally I think it would be WAY better to spend the extra $125 and buy the Sigma off him (over the kit lens)

Message edited by author 2006-07-26 21:12:03.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

07/26/2006 09:10:12 PM · #6

Originally posted by Megatherian:

the buy sell forums are for members only, that's why you can't see them :(

doh! never thought of that ;)

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/26/2006 09:10:58 PM · #7

well, that explains it... that sucks!

thanks for the offer too...a bit expensive for me though.

Message edited by author 2006-07-26 21:12:56.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

07/26/2006 11:24:16 PM · #8

You don't want to spend more than 150?

Ok, maybe it's time to reconsider the 20D and put some money into glass.

You might be better off with a 300D and 650 dollars worth of glass than a 20D with a kit lens and 150 dollars worth.

How long are you planning on going without upgrading lenses?

Ouch!

Well if it's worth anything, my budget recommendations are these:

Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Macro ($220)
Kit lens (you already have it)
Canon 50mm f/1.8 (80 bucks) (watch the focus on this one, it's sharp, but in my experience has sloppy focusing)

Once you have that, you can do a LOT.

Then you can learn what you want to improve next.

Next step up for improvements would be:
Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $550 or 500 bucks used) (also watch for the upcoming Tokina 50-150 f/2.8)
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or something similar)
Canon 50mm f/1.4

Then, once you get settled with that:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro

And you are set.... sort of... Upgrade as needed of course...

Message edited by author 2006-07-26 23:34:24.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/26/2006 11:26:51 PM · #9

I agree. Glass is the best way to do it. Bodies can be upgraded fast but glass... well that's really where your money is ;)

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/26/2006 11:29:18 PM · #10

Originally posted by Rikki:

I agree. Glass is the best way to do it. Bodies can be upgraded fast but glass... well that's really where your money is ;)

Actually, it's with photoshop. :P

07/26/2006 11:37:26 PM · #11

Originally posted by Mulder:

I came across some money and was planning on buying a Canon 350D, but many encouraged me just to go for the 20D, which I am planning on doing.

You should give this further thought. Quality of photos between these two cameras is pretty much the same. Functional differences between the two aren't likely to matter to you for some time. Check out dpreview.com's review on the 350.

The money you save going with the 350, and you can buy it body-only without the piece of sh*t kit lense, plus the $150 you are willing to spend as it is could probably get you a couple decent lenses to start out with. The cheap 50mm 1.8 mentioned already, the sigma telephoto mentioned already and maybe 1 more depending on what you are being charged for the 20d.

07/27/2006 04:50:34 PM · #12

thanks for you suggestions! a few more questions/comments

I'm not really saying I only want to spend $150 for a lens...my question was more of one that if someone had a decent lens lying around that they rarely used, and if they would want to sell it.

So it's a better idea to go for better lenses now, and upgrade the body later? To me (and I don't claim to know everything) it seems to make more sense to buy a body I plan on keeping for a long time (not losing money when I re-sell it to upgrade) and build lenses on that.

Thanks again for your help.

Kevin

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 16:57:34.

07/27/2006 04:53:10 PM · #13

The camera bodies lose value. The lenses hold it well. Look at ebay and compare the prices people are paying now for cameras and look at the prices they are paying for lenses. Compare to the 'new' retail price for both, you will see often they are paying close to new price for lenses (sometimes more for god knows why) and a good chunk less than new for bodies. 20D's, just as example, took a good drop as soon as 5D's came out.

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 16:55:52.

07/27/2006 04:58:33 PM · #14

right, that's what I mean....Instead of paying $600 for a 350D (or whatever they are), buy lenses, and use it. Then in a year when I grow out of it, have to sell it for...say $200, wouldn't it be better to get the 20D and add lenses to that?

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 17:01:27.

07/27/2006 05:06:00 PM · #15

Like I said, if you were deciding between 20D and 350, and you read all the reviews discussing basic equality of image quality and differences in functionality that may not (probably won't) matter to you, then to me the smarter move would be buy the 350. Even with the price drop, it is still a few hundred bucks less than the 20d and a few hundred bucks can get you a lense or is at least a good chunk of $$$ towards a lense.

You'll be happy either way I'm sure, but the lenses are really the more important part of the equation so whatever gets you better lenses or the lense/lenses you need to do what you want to do, then that is the path you should take.

edit: and when i refer to 20d price drop, im referring to people unloading them for a nice discount because they ran out and got 5d's. Don't know if Canon actually dropped prices on them new.

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 17:07:04.

07/27/2006 05:11:41 PM · #16

mhmm, thanks, really helpful.

thing is, the 20D's frame rate is pretty much what makes me want it...I'm looking to do a lot of snowboarding photography for my friends this winter, and I just love to make those sequence shots....but 3 fps isn't bad either I guess....I'll have to think about it some more...

07/27/2006 05:13:30 PM · #17

Ahh so now you want weatherproof body and sealed lenses... ;)

07/27/2006 05:21:33 PM · #18

yea...I'll just sell my car, snowboard, stocks, and roth IRA and get an 1DS2MKII I think

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

07/27/2006 05:44:42 PM · #19

just one last question....

Do Canon lenses made for film cameras (EF) work just as well as the ones specifically for digital cameras? (EF-S)

Bugzeye

07/27/2006 05:48:25 PM · #20

ain't that the truth, I could have bought 3 more camreas with the money I have invested in glass. all tamron too, would have been many more $$$ if I had invested in real nikon glass.

Originally posted by Rikki:

I agree. Glass is the best way to do it. Bodies can be upgraded fast but glass... well that's really where your money is ;)

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

07/27/2006 05:52:49 PM · #21

Originally posted by Mulder:

yea...I'll just sell my car, snowboard, stocks, and roth IRA and get an 1DS2MKII I think

With no lens.....

coronamv