Canon 30D body, buying separate lens.

[pasoviennese]

Hey all you photography gurus out there,

I've finally set my mind on a Canon EOS 30D. YEAH! :)
Went around the shops in town today and had a few quotes.
I was going to go with the package, but then I just found out it's a lot of out my budget :(

Here's what I got quoted for:
Canon EOS 30D + 17-85mm Lens + Polarize filter + Bag + 2Gb CF + Battery Grip + 5year warranty = $2800 (with 6 month interest free finance)

Seems like an alright deal? Meh.... I can't really afford that much.

Here comes the question lol

I'm sort of only interested in landscape photography at the moment, so I don't need a lens of broad usage. Don't like the 18-55mm it comes with, so I'm going to buy the body and lens separately. Good idea? Or no?

The body will cost me $1600 or there abouts. What lens do you guys recommend for landscape photography? I try to keep everything below $2000 Just the camera body + 1 suggested lens for landscape + polarize filter.

Also, is it wise to buy second hand lens for the time being and use it on my new 30D? Is there a chance of a bad lens damaging the camera body?


Thanks in advance,

Jimmy

[Saralonde]

Buying the body and lens separately is not a bad idea. The kit lens is not great, but it's not terrible either. Pricewise, it's a good deal. Virtually any other lens will cost you much more. The only other decent lens that would be less is the 50 f/1.8 ($70 US), but it's not a terrific landscape lens. Are you looking for a walk around (all-purpose) lens that you can use for landscapes, or something that is mostly landscape?

[pasoviennese]

Hey,

I am after something that is mostly landscape or wildlife.
Hence something with a greater focal length. Maybe > 100mm, if I can find one with good price.

I was thinking second hand lens (on Ebay maybe), since it's going to be my first and will be replaced later on. Is that a good idea? Any potential harm to the camera body if I happen to land on a bad quality lens?

Thanks again,

Jimmy

[Saralonde]

No, a secondhand lens is a good choice and should not damage your camera. Be careful to buy from a reliable source. You might need a greater focal length for wildlife. 100mm may not get you close enough. You might want a wider lens for landscapes.

[Saralonde]

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=999

[pasoviennese]

I seem to be a bit confused with wide angle and wide aperture.
Are they the same or different? Because I see you refer to F/ number.

[Saralonde]

An example of a wide angle lens is a 10-20mm. A lens like this will have a wider field of view. The f number is aperture. Wide aperture allows in more light, itis the size of the lens opening. The Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 will allow a wide angle view (the 10-20), but the 3.5-4.5 means you cannot open the lens wider than these settings, and will work best in good light conditions.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear here. Lack of sleep last night has left my brain a little fuzzy.:)

[Saralonde]

To aid my fuzzy brain...
http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/aperture/
http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/an-introduction-to-types-of-dlsr-lenses/

And for lens reviews that work on Canon:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

[pasoviennese]

Yes, thank you. That explains everything clearly.
So, correct me if I'm wrong.

If I want a single lens to do both landscape and wild life. I will need a focal length that covers a greater span. eg. 17-300mm (if there is such a thing :p)
The 17mm part will give me wider angle and better for landscape, while the 300mm part will allow me to zoom in on some wild life.

f/3.5 is the maximum aperture, hence maximum light i can let in
so f/1.5 will allow me to work under lower light than f/4.5
and playing around with the aperture, smaller f/ number gives shallow depth of field while larger f/ number give great depth of field.

Thank you so much! You've been a great help!
I think we both need to grab some sleep, it's 1:30am here where I am. :p

G'night!

[Saralonde]

You got it!

If you're on a budget: http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1400

[smc1377]

Yes, thank you. That explains everything clearly.
So, correct me if I'm wrong.

If I want a single lens to do both landscape and wild life. I will need a focal length that covers a greater span. eg. 17-300mm (if there is such a thing :p)
The 17mm part will give me wider angle and better for landscape, while the 300mm part will allow me to zoom in on some wild life.

f/3.5 is the maximum aperture, hence maximum light i can let in
so f/1.5 will allow me to work under lower light than f/4.5
and playing around with the aperture, smaller f/ number gives shallow depth of field while larger f/ number give great depth of field.

Thank you so much! You've been a great help!
I think we both need to grab some sleep, it's 1:30am here where I am. :p

G'night!

WOW! You're a fast learner. It took me months to figure out all of that. Of course, back then, we didn't have DPS forums either. :D

[inkista]

... If I want a single lens to do both landscape and wild life. I will need a focal length that covers a greater span. eg. 17-300mm (if there is such a thing :p)
Yes, and errr....

The mistake here is in the assumption that you'll want a single lens. If you want a single lens to do that, then your real only choice is a point-and-shoot. Sorry. You're asking for a lot of light bending from the glass to do all that in a single lens. Even the 18mm-200 zooms that Nikon & Sigma make are typically reviewed as having distortion, chromatic aberration, not the sharpest, etc. Lenses with over a 3x zoom factor are often optically compromised. To put this into P&S terms, a 17-300 lens would be a 17x zoom.

The entire point of having a camera with an interchangeable lens system is that you can switch lenses and have special-purpose glass of far higher quality. But if you're expecting that moving to dSLR is going to be like a straight-shot upgrade from a P&S, you may be highly disappointed. Off the bat, you're going to lose zoom range, macro capability, and probably some aperture, too.

On the plus side, you're gaining a lot more flexibility and performance, but it's comparing apples to oranges in some ways. And P&Ss have probably taught you to think of the camera itself as your main purchase.

With SLRs, you're buying a camera system. You will spend as much (if not more) on lenses than you will on the body. Try to begin thinking of the camera body as an accessory for your lenses. Not the lens as a camera accessory. When you upgrade to a new camera body, your lenses will still be there. The lenses are your permanent purchase.

The 17mm part will give me wider angle and better for landscape, while the 300mm part will allow me to zoom in on some wild life.Again, this is mostly (say 95%) correct. For a typical shooter. But you or your subject matter might NOT be typical. Focal lengths can sometimes come down to your personal shooting style and choice of subject matter. Some folks shoot landscapes with 200mm telephotos. Some folks can get deer to come up to them, and they can shoot them with portrait-length lenses. Everyone can tell you what works for them. I can't tell you the number of times folks told me before I bought it that a 24-105 was "too long for a crop body." But I knew that I shoot long, so for me, and for me, it's perfect. And my shooting buddy won't touch it with a ten-foot pole because it's exactly wrong for how he shoots, and he adores the 17-85. Be willing to trust your own judgement.

When asking for lens recommendations, always specify a) your budget, b) what you plan to shoot with it, and c) some details on how you plan to shoot with it (tripod/handheld. From the sidelines/bleachers/in the field, etc). And never ever expect to get an all-in-one lens, or a really fantastic lens for low cost (except for the notable exceptions Saralonde has pointed out).

f/3.5 is the maximum aperture, hence maximum light i can let in
so f/1.5 will allow me to work under lower light than f/4.5
and playing around with the aperture, smaller f/ number gives shallow depth of field while larger f/ number give great depth of field.
Yes, you've gotten the theory down perfectly. It's just that you'll never find an f/1.5 lens. [grin] And as a rule-of-thumb, f/2.8 is the minimum needed for indoor shooting without a flash.

You have to go back to basic geometry, but remember that the f-number is not on a linear scale. The difference between f/1.0 and f/2.0 is not a single unit. It's a factor of four. This is the same difference as between f/11 and f/22 (two stops. Which is also the difference between 1/60s and 1/250s or iso 100 and iso 400).

The basic upshot is that while smaller f-numbers don't look like they're very different (e.g., f/1.2 vs. f/1.4), it can mean a US$900 difference in lens price. Basically, an extreme of focal length (either wide or telephoto), or a wider aperture always add to the price tag, because they're asking the glass to really bend or gather the light.

[Merlyn]

I have the 30D and love it. Forget the battery pack. You will not need it so swap it for some other piece of equipment or save the extra money. The 30D does an excellent job on battery usage. The pack is a tad bulky and makes the camera odd to handle. Spend the saved $$$$$s on and extra battery for the camera. The batteries can be purchased for as little as $10 a piece if you shop around on the net. $$$$$ saved can buy some new glass.:)

[schnitzel14]

I just bought my Canon 30D last year. I paid, incl the 18-55 lens $1350. I purchased my camera at newegg.com. They offer 6 mo same as cash. You can also get a 8GB Compact Flash card for about $125. I then got one lens from e-bay and was able to use another lens from my old EOS 620.
Hope this helps
Mike:)

[Olddawg]

Why not try a 17- 40 f4 or a 16-35