PDA

View Full Version : The "Magic Three"



Foots
12-29-2009, 02:55 PM
Hi All,

Thanks for the warm welcome!

I have been taking pictures for about 6 years, first with a pocket camera, then my Lumix and now am ready for the big time.

After reading Bambi's thread, it seems in the DSLR the Nikon D5000 or the Canon Rebel T1i will meet my needs. I don't want anything that weighs more then that.

What I find difficult is choosing the lens(s) for the camera. I think Nikon has IS in the body by requires Nikon Lens while Canon has IS in the lens but you can use other manufacturers.

I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?

I can't really claim any specialty. I take the usual home, family, pets and garden photos. Other than that, I love the quirky, people caught unaware, skies and light. And, I have no aspirations to be a "professional" With my current camera I haven't been able to take night photos or even in dark places. I would like to learn that.

I print my own pictures usually at 8.5 x 11. I would like to go bigger.

Bambi, you got a good price - looks like you saved from list - are you a good negotiator?

Here is one of my first photos taken on the pocket camera - megapixels less than a cell phone today. It's not photography but just fun.

Bambi
12-29-2009, 03:07 PM
Hey Foots, glad to be of help :)

Marko did a podcast on lenses (#58 I believe). He recommends spending more money on lenses then the camera. However, I am a little lost in looking at lenses so will just play with what I have for now until I can figure it out....

http://www.photography.ca/blog/?p=193

Foots
12-29-2009, 03:13 PM
Thanks Bambi, I looked for one, but must have missed it.

F8&Bthere
12-29-2009, 03:13 PM
I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?

Nikon and Canon are both in-lens stabilization, so the playing field is level in that respect.

For what you are describing in your post, I'd say my three picks- and I'll use the Nikon system as that is what I am more familiar with- would be as follows:

1. Get camera body with 18-55VR kit lens.
2. Then when I can afford it I'd add the 55-200VR lens
3. Then if/when I feel I want one fast lens for low light/indoors/compact needs I would spend the worth-every-penny $150 to add the 50mm/1.8 prime lens.

By my rough calculation a total spent of around CA$1200 (not including all the other goodies one may want or need soon enough like extra battery, memory cards, bag, etc)

I am quite sure most of what I've mentioned above can be applied to Canon brand as well

Now, if you go into a camera shop and mention the term "magic three" in the same sentence as Nikon, you'll probably get the salesman's heart pounding because that's what many people call the trio of pro zooms 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 max, but this trio would set you back a mere $6000+ :)

Bambi
12-29-2009, 03:15 PM
I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?

Nikon and Canon are both in-lens stabilization, so the playing field is level in that respect.

For what you are describing in your post, I'd say my three picks- and I'll use the Nikon system as that is what I am more familiar with- would be as follows:

1. Get camera body with 18-55VR kit lens.
2. Then when I can afford it I'd add the 55-200VR lens
3. Then if/when I feel I want one fast lens for low light/indoors/compact needs I would spend the worth-every-penny $150 to add the 50mm/1.8 prime lens.

By my rough calculation a total spent of around CA$1150 (not including all the other goodies one may want or need soon enough like extra battery, memory cards, bag, etc)

I am quite sure most of what I've mentioned above can be applied to Canon brand as well

Now, if you go into a camera shop and mention the term "magic three" in the same sentence as Nikon, you'll probably get the salesman's heart pounding because that's what many people call the trio of pro zooms 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 max, but this trio would set you back a mere $6000+ :)


thanks F8 that is very helpful. I will avoid that phrase in the future....(unless I win a lottery)

kat
12-29-2009, 03:42 PM
If you are in a big city, I'd suggest renting some lenses for a couple of days and test them out. You'll learn pretty fast what you like and don't like.

That is after you get your camera base. :) So I guess that may not be a handy idea.

Congrats on your upgrade!

F8&Bthere
12-29-2009, 03:57 PM
Marko did a podcast on lenses (#58 I believe). He recommends spending more money on lenses then the camera...

Yes but when one is starting from scratch on a tight budget I would think that one can't possibly save enough on the body to enable them to upgrade to higher quality glass.

What I mean is if you are starting from scratch and have a budget of, say $1200 or less, then you can *maybe* buy one really good lens (even then would likely be a prime since most fast zooms from the major manufacturers are well over $1200) and no camera. Then you can just put that lens on a shelf like a trophy and admire it until you can afford a body to actually put it to use. OR you can start off with a decent body and kit lens package and get out there taking pictures and learning which focal lengths are the most important to you, for when you do have enough moolah to invest in better glass.

I think where Marko's sound advice really applies is when some amateur photographers tend to over-invest in their bodies while their arsenal of glass is perhaps mostly mediocre to poor quality. And also the financial investment side of it- top tier lenses hold their value quite well over the years, for resale, but camera bodies don't.

Foots
12-29-2009, 04:03 PM
Thanks F8 - I don't want to lead those salesmen astray. What does the VR mean?

Kit - your suggestion is excellent. Then I don't get stuck with something I don't like.

Bambi, I listened to the pod cast and now I understand a little more.

Canon is charging $250 for the kit lens - unless there are some other giveaways, I don't think it's good value - would probably just buy the body. Particularly since F8 said I could buy a good 50mm f1.8 for $150.

F8&Bthere
12-29-2009, 04:12 PM
VR= Vibration Reduction, Nikon's term for in lens stabilization. So typically if you don't see the letters VR in the lens model name, it doesn't feature any stabilization.

IS= Image Stabilization (I think), Canon's term, ditto the above.

F8&Bthere
12-29-2009, 05:56 PM
...Canon is charging $250 for the kit lens - unless there are some other giveaways, I don't think it's good value - would probably just buy the body. Particularly since F8 said I could buy a good 50mm f1.8 for $150.

Well there's some qualifications involved, namely that the 50mm/1.8 prime is a mass produced normal compact "everyman's" prime focal length and since it is easy enough to manufacture and sells in sufficient quantities the price is quite reasonable. So I have the Nikon version and I've heard that Canon is the same- excellent optical quality and wide aperture for a very low price. Pretty much an anomoly. But when comparing the 50mm to any zoom lens, I would guess that zooms are more complex and thus expensive to manufacture. So it's kinda apples and oranges.

Usually the "kit" or entry level zooms are lower in price when they are part of the package- you just have to compare the pricing of body + lens to the price bundled to see where the value is. The good news is as Mad Aussie pointed out in Bambi's new camera thread, the kit zooms can be quite sharp, optically sound, and plenty adequate for many of our needs while we are on the learning curve. Just do your research and as Kat suggested, renting or trying them out is the best.

Marko
12-29-2009, 06:08 PM
Now, if you go into a camera shop and mention the term "magic three" in the same sentence as Nikon, you'll probably get the salesman's heart pounding because that's what many people call the trio of pro zooms 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 max, but this trio would set you back a mere $6000+

Although these particular lenses are pricey, these focal lengths are excellent choices and what I myself use to cover most jobs.

They WOULD INDEED be my 3 choices if i could only choose 3.

F8&Bthere
12-30-2009, 12:17 AM
...They WOULD INDEED be my 3 choices if i could only choose 3.

OK well silly me I didn't realize it was a "if money was no object" kinda question. Seemed to me the OP was following a bit in Bambi's footsteps and claimed he/she had no aspirations of going pro. Is it too late to change my answer? ;)

Foots
12-30-2009, 12:59 AM
You are not too late. I looked but didn't buy.

Re your ["if money was no object" kinda question] well it is and it isn't. $6k is out of my range but I understand lenses are expensive and have been saving my pennies for a while.

I decided on the Canon Rebel T1i - mainly because if like the feel of it, but also my friends have Rebels - so I might be able to borrow a lens or two on occasion.

The 14-24; 24-70; and 70-200 combination is not so easy. Henry's doesn't have a smooth transition although Canon has a lot more. Some of the lenses I looked at are:

10-22 f3.5-4.5 $950
17-55 f2.8 1lb - don't know cost
17-85 f4-5.6 $500
24-70 f2.8 2 lbs - don't know cost
24-105 f4 1lb $1400

and then:
18-200 f3.5-5.6 1 lb $800
and a 70-200 f2.8 that weighs over 3 lbs. $1,900.

I realize now that I am not only trying to balance an appropriate selection and price, but also weight. Tamron and Tokina just add to the complexities.

Thanks for the info re the difference between a prime and a zoom - in terms of pricing.

Some of the information is starting to come together and some still confusing.

I'll look again tomorrow.

Mad Aussie
12-30-2009, 02:15 AM
Just reading through and I get the impression that you can spend more than you want ... if you wanted to. In this case ... Marko's advice to spend bigger on the lenses than the body is sound advice.

I have a range of lenses from the cheapy little EF 50mm 1.8 prime (worth about $150) through to my EF 100 - 400 4.5 -5.6 L IS of over $2000 worth.
I used to own a Rebel with the cheap kit lenses, and as many have seen here at ph.ca, the owner of that camera and kit (my daughter) produced better photos than I did a few days ago.
Frankly ... with a Rebel in my hand, I wouldn't spend the big bucks on these L series lenses unless I had a specific reason to and couldn't find a cheaper choice in the middle market. The EFS lenses I have of around that $1000 mark produce results just as good in most circumstances. The L series lenses are very heavy as you've discovered.

Also Image Stabilization really isn't needed until you are zoomed out to about 200mm (unless you are particularly unsteady for some reason) so I wouldn't pay extra for it if I didn't need to.

You've chosen the Rebel so you won't get quite as good high ISO performance as you would the Nikon D5000 I think but if you are talking about long exposure night shots of cities etc than that won't be a worry anyhow.

Fortytwo
12-30-2009, 03:57 AM
I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?


1. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
2. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8
3. Tokina 12-24mm f4

These are all very sharp and fast lenses for a very reasonal price. They are just as good as their Canon/Nikon counterparts, for half the price at least.

Bambi
12-30-2009, 09:45 AM
1. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
2. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8
3. Tokina 12-24mm f4

These are all very sharp and fast lenses for a very reasonal price. They are just as good as their Canon/Nikon counterparts, for half the price at least.

Newbie Question:
so, I don't have to buy lenses from Nikon even though I have a nikon? there are others that will fit?

Fortytwo
12-30-2009, 10:34 AM
Nope. Certain manufacturers make lenses for different brands. Especially Tamron and Sigma make lenses for almost every DSLR brand. So when buying one, you have to make sure it's the one that fits your brand. Which mount is has, is stated on the box etc.

Tamron and Sigma are the biggest ones. Both make lenses for Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Olympus. Usually, a similar lens from them is cheaper as an original Nikon. Sometimes the quality is less and you're better off buying an original Nikon, but sometimes they perform similar of even better. It depents. The ones I recommended to you are well known to be excellent performers for a very good price. So buying a Tamron or Sigma requires some research whether the lens you're buying is a good performer, but it repays itself in cheaper gear.
Tokina makes lenses for Nikon and Canon only. Well, it actually doesn't make them theirselfs. Tokina lenses are actually Pentax lenses in disguise. The Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 is in reallity a Pentax DA* 50-135mm f2.8. This helps in finding reviews about them. Except they are cheaper then their Pentax cousins.

Basically, when looking for a particular lens, you've got these options:
1. The original Nikon lens
2. A Sigma/Tamron/Tokina counterpart with a Nikon mount
Which one is best, depents on the lens. The internets helps to make your decision. A lot of people however are firm believers that anything 'original' is better. Test results show different. I've got myself a Sigma 50mm f1.4 because it clearly outperforms the original Pentax one.

And if you're not sure, ask here at the forums. There are tons of people like me who like to geek around lens specs for you and give you advice. At least I will... :)

F8&Bthere
12-30-2009, 11:51 AM
This is actually a very good angle coming from Fortytwo, don't know why I failed to mention it. Buying non OEM lenses can give you the best of both worlds if you make your choices wisely. Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all have some gems. You will still probably spend quite a bit more than on the kit lenses and name brand 50/1.8 I mentioned earlier, but if you have funds available yes of course it is better to invest more into the glass. My point was made under the assumption that this was a "baby steps" move into DSLR from a point & shoot and for around $500ish to get two decent lenses to cover from 18 - 200, with VR on the longer one, plus one fast prime deal like a 50/1.8 is hard to beat just to get you up and running.

kat
12-30-2009, 12:18 PM
I noticed everyone talking about the lens not the base.. the lenses is what takes you on.

BUT..get the wrong base and you'll be hitting your head on the ground. Make sure you get what you need from your base as much as you need from your lenses. In other words..don't get the Nikon D40x..lol. You'll regret it.

I would love to get that range of lens that Marko and F8 has listed. That would cover all my wants..and most likely most peoples wants.

Good luck!

Foots
12-30-2009, 11:20 PM
Thanks all, for your interest and information. 42 - I compared the prices Tamron/Tokina vs Canon - you are right they are slightly less than half.

An interesting point I noticed, is Canon is pretty light in the f2.8 lenses. The OEM's seem to be ahead of them.

I have been reading up on the internet, reviews, specs and feel comfortable that I would like every one of them. (LOL)

Kat - I have decided on the Rebel T1i for the body. And I am going to take your suggestion and rent a lens, try it out and see how it fits with the kind of picture I like to take. I'll check out Henry's to see what they have available for rent.

MA - it's a good point you make, being that it is the photographer not the equipment. I have been reading various critiques over the past few days. Before, I didn't give composition a thought. If it worked, it worked, if it didn't press the delete. Based on the comments I have seen, it takes photography to a new level - and that is exciting.

I often hear of photographers who say, "I wish I had ....." and was hoping to avoid that, which to some extent I will because of all your feedback. However, I probably will still end up with an "I wish I had ....."

This morning I heard that New Year's eve is a full moon and it is the second full moon in the month - so it is called a Blue Moon! Depending how awake I am, it might be my first project.

Thanks to everyone for all your help. Now I am just itching to go out and buy the body.

Mad Aussie
12-30-2009, 11:44 PM
Glad we could help!

Foots
12-31-2009, 04:34 PM
As it turns out, I chickened out. Bought the body (Rebel T1i) with kit lens. I got a good price so the lens only cost me $30 - so it was well worth it.

It was just too hard to decide. Also, renting lenses is not very easy since they are on the other side of Toronto.

I will buy more lens, but it will be one of my tomorrows.

Happy New Year.

Mad Aussie
12-31-2009, 04:44 PM
Well you've made a good start! Is it the 18-55mm lens?

Foots
12-31-2009, 04:49 PM
Yes - 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS. Soon as the battery charges, I will start playing.

Mad Aussie
12-31-2009, 04:51 PM
Good little landscape and portrait lens to kick off with :)

Have a look at Chantelle's photos here at ph.ca ... 400D with a non IS version of that lens.

zenon5940
12-31-2009, 05:38 PM
Originally Posted by Fortytwo
1. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
2. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8
3. Tokina 12-24mm f4

Thanks 42 for the reseach you've made to come up with the three lenses you mention.
Any reason why you went to Tamron (instead of Tokina) for the 17-50 mm ?. My first SLR was a Pentax SP II and the sharpness of its 50mm lens was so impressing that I would without any hesitation buy a Tokina lens ... and I will buy very shortly the 12-24 F:4 you listed.
Thanks again for mentioning it.

Marko
12-31-2009, 06:13 PM
Keep in mind everyone's needs are different.

My 3 lens choices (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200) are based on my needs which is a little bit of everything :). Your needs may well vary and this is NOT the perfect solution for everyone.

Many people forgo the 24-70 favour in favour of a 50mm prime; but having shot weddings for years, that lens is a must have.

F8&Bthere
01-01-2010, 12:08 AM
My 3 lens choices (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200) are based on my needs which is a little bit of everything . Your needs may well vary and this is NOT the perfect solution for everyone.

Yeah that's a real nice trio of lenses as long as you don't mind schlepping them around. It's hard to leave it at only three though, as I wouldn't mind adding the 85/1.4 "cream machine" for portraits and such. And of course if birds or wildlife is your thang you might want one of the longer lenses as well. All I've been able to justify cost wise so far is the Nikkor 300/4 (older version with slower AF). But I don't do a lot of bird/wildlife type shooting. I'm currently saving up for the 14-24. Maybe next summer.

Marko
01-01-2010, 12:41 PM
Just so it's clear....those lens choices are based on a 'choose only 3' scenario. There's puhhhlently of other desirable lenses. I also own a 24mm 2.8 prime that is superb!

Foots
01-01-2010, 02:16 PM
Thank you and yes it was clear. I'm glad I bought the kit lens - because it gives me a chance to see what distance is and what I can and cannot shoot. My Lumix had 12x zoom but I haven't a clue how that would equate to distance. I do know 12x was often not enough. I think the DSLR will provide different photo opportunities.

Did you have a good New Year's eve. I hear they might call the last decade the knotties (oo) although they may spell it like naughties.

ArtTwisted
02-11-2010, 12:59 AM
I would get the d5000 body, the

-tamron 17-50 2.8 (20ish - 75 walkaround equivilant) 300-400 bucks
- Nikon 50mm F1.8 - 100 to 140
-Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 750 - 900


I have the d90 (same sensor as the d5000) and the tammy 17-50 and my images turn out much sharper then the kit lense could ever do. It only cost me 375, worth every penny. Id suggest that tamron lense to any person wether they shoot nikon or canon.

Hillbillygirl
02-11-2010, 07:08 AM
Congrat's on your new toy Foots, I know you will enjoy it. That being said, now that you have a wider end lens, my next choice would be the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS, if you are looking for an affordable zoom. This lens is exceptional glass for the price. My husband owned this lens for several years before going to L glass. It really does compare quite nicely to the higher end glass, and doesn't burn a hole in your wallet.
You can check it out here. Canon Lens: Zooms - Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (Tested) - SLRgear.com! (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/253/cat/11)