Buyer's Guide (turns into magnus' obsession with photography running commentary)

see what they will let you in with. nfl stadiums usually have rules about the size of lenses they allow in the stands.

and what do you mean by "good shots" -- like of the formations? you'd have to be shooting with at least 300mm to get what i think you're wanting to get. you could add a teleconverter on there and get some cool stuff.

 

click to see pics of a guy who shot a college game from the upper deck. note that he was using a 600mm lens.

 

most I would really be able to afford would be a 300 lens anyway. So, no worries, I won't be able to do anything at a greater size.

 

Here are some upper deck shots:

 

from a 300 lens? That's about as much as I'd realistically expect to get. They let the 300 in?


It's pretty tough, all this. I can read all this all day and it's still
tough because you're buying into a system that's both marketed and sold
as a body-driven technology. But experienced shooters talk about it as
it being a lens-driven thing. It's nuts, and partially because it
doesn't seem like the consumer is being setup correctly for themselves,
they're being setup for the manufacturer. They don't tell you that you
probably won't end up as happy with the lens as the body, when they're
trying to sell you this lens. You can't find a kit that's setup the
way you would eventually want. And if you could, you'd probably get
scared away by how much it'd cost, given that instead of $100-150 more
than the cost of the body it'd be more than double.

I don't think I'm going to get into the habit of having huge-dollar
lenses and buying a new body every three years like it's a throwaway
item. Hopefully I'll be happy with the kit I buy and don't go past that,
but I can see where this becomes a huge money pt of a hobby. With the
image stabilization and autofocus advances, I have doubts that lenses
will be that much more useful in five years compared to the bodies, so
you either stick with what you have and shoot that through that time, or
you upgrade everything.

But it seems like, if at all possible, the idea is to buy a body only
(which is more expensive), and then put a really good lens on it (which
of course probably costs as much as the body). Then you don't have
versatility so you've gotta go get another good lens. And so on.


So.
The Canon IS 18-55 lens that comes with the XSI kit. Good enough?

If it is, it might sway me back to there. If not, and whatever lens is
going to be whatever lens, I'm about lost. I don't know why, I don't
anticipate myself going over a grand to get into this hobby honestly,
and the kit lens is gonna have to be about good enough anyway.

That, or I have one really good lens, and hope there's a good long lens
for $200 or less later on. My feeling right now, if I had the right money (and realistically it will be a stretch), would be to buy a body like the a350, put a good, older Minolta lens on it, and forget about a kit.

 

my short answer is I have absolutely zero experience with the 18-55 IS, but the world on most of the forums that I read is that it's a great lens for the money, and it's a half decent lens overall - a vast improvement over the previous, non-IS version (the improvement isnt limited to the addition of the IS system, it's an entirely new lens).

the long answer is I understand your frustration/confusion. I felt the same way before jumping into this thing, and frankly, sometimes still feel that way. My "dream setup" changes regularly, and I'm sure there is no single "dream setup" shared by anyone... tastes/budgets are just that different.

As far as the kit conundrum, there are some kits out there (particularly in the next 2 series) that are really pretty nice. The 40-50D comes in a kit with the 28-135IS, a lens I paid about $400 for (the kit cost is about $200 over the body only cost). the 28-135 is a GREAT consumer grade lens. I love mine and I know Savio is pretty happy with his. Sure, if you're making money off your photos you'd want something better - Larry wouldn't carry one in a million years - but for regular schmoes like me, it's a great lens.

The really tough thing is that I didn't really know what lenses I wanted or needed until after I had shot for a while. Photography is all about compromises. There are very few (maybe none at all) lenses that do everything perfectly. At least for me, I learned what I wanted next by finding the limitations of the equipment I had on hand.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's good to start cheap. If that meets your needs, you have spent too much money on something that's overkill. If it doesnt, you'll know better later what WILL suit your needs. Photography, like any art, is very subjective, and is very much in the desire and intent of the artist. That's why it's hard for someone to just tell you what to buy - you need to find that out on your own.

 

sorry - in thinking about that long diatribe I forgot to answer your original question about the lens. Yeah, those were taken with the 75-300 I warned you about on my XTi. I've got in with that just fine (and have since gotten in with my larger 70-300IS) and have even carried an extra lens in with no problem (other than having to carry the other lens in my hand since I couldnt bring a bag in).

 

I found a deal for a Canon XS with that 18-55 EF-S lens and another non-IS lens 75-300. For $500. For the same as I could get the Sony A300 plus one kit lens - the smaller one I've read a few reviews to be crap that started my diatribe this afternoon.

Now I wanted more than the XS - an XSi or the A350. I was ready to buy the a350 really, based on lower average price, the array of good, cheap Minota AF lenses, and the higher pixel count really doesn't hurt. That LiveView really is state of the art, too. I can certainly live with the XS, I'll never know enough difference with the i to know better. But without the decent lenses, I don't know.


But the thing is, I hesitated to buy this kit before, because the long lenses aren't IS. Am I wrong to hesitate at such a good price? I could, of course, invest in a good, long, IS lens later. God I hate in-lens IS, though.

The other fun thing is it's Tuesday AM, I'd need the camera by Friday for the game Sunday, and free shipping becomes $21 to get it by then.



and I get where you are, Mark. It really is good to start cheap, I guess. And I know where I"m coming from, if I go bigger.

Anyway, thanks to both for all the help. I know I'm working y'all overtime.

 

One thing I want stress again though (in regards to the XS kit you're talking about) is how unhappy I was with that 75-300 lens. I bought it only about 2 weeks after buying my camera, so I was as green as they come, and I still knew the results of that lens were crappy. I returned it after only about a week.

 

Bought the sony. Felt comfortable with it. Liked the feel, liked the response. The viewfinder is kinda dark, that's my first concern, and I didn't like the XS as much. I tried that III lens in-store and I'm sure that's been beat to hell by customers and kids but it felt chunky and unresponsive in manual. The lack of in-body IS was a problem, too. I know, IS isn't for everybody, but I have been shooting for a short time. I'll need it. I do think the older Minolta lenses are really solid, and cheap on Ebay, work with the AF, don't need to be IS, I think long term to add good lenses will be cheaper.

I've heard less than flattering things from some about the smaller Sony lens, though, so I hope I don't regret that. It felt fine in-store, though.
Bought a Sigma long lens to go with it, but if I don't like it, I'll see about returning it. I can probably do better on ebay long term with a KM lens, so who knows.

Took a big 180 on the Olympus early on. It sounded like a good idea and there are plenty of people who say four-thirds is emerging tech. It's good stuff really, and I have no worries about whether an item I buy will be obsolete when it does more than I can ever do. The problem is, micro four-thirds is coming, and while I don't think Olympus will abandon four-thirds, I do believe they'll put their effort into the micro given the available sensors and cheap megapixel numbers, so you either wait for more micro 4/3 or you just go with a bigger frame.

I can't believe how much better the pro level cameras are for about twice the money. Sure, it's way too much money, but I felt like it was just so much more accomodating from the first time you pick it up. And it should be for the price. But I loved every second of the feel. Call it some level of forbidden or unattainable quality, because I probably won't ever have anything like that. I won't ever try to fool myself into thinking there's a marketable skill here, as if I'm going to sit at home listening to a police scanner or stalking the sidelines for good sports shots. But those bigger cameras are so natural, so much better. It's definitely a win-the-lottery thing, though.

Anyway, though, I'm gonna try to not pay attention to this forum until I have some questions about the end, not the means, so I can resist being a geargeek for a while.