Need advice on body and lenses setup

[ayearabroad]

Yes, this is another which camera is best suited for my needs thread

Basically, my sibling has a 400D which i've also used before and I'm planning to get a DSLR for myself. I'm currently deciding between the 40/50d and the 500d. Some of my photog friends have advised me to just skip the 500d since it's the same range as the dslr my sibling has. so i think i'll probably follow this advice and decide between the 40 and 50d instead.

My concerns between the 40 and 50d are, taking away price, I read that the 50d has rather bad high ISO performance, and because I'm thinking I'll be taking a lot of 'night' pictures considering it's already dark at 4pm in Europe, will the 40d be a better choice? I'm not too concerned with whether it's a newer model or not. Maybe the reviews I've read are biased but it seems that the 40d is a better choice than the 50d because of the better dynamic range and better performance with not-so-great lenses. What are your thoughts on this? Will the 40D be a better bet than the 50d? I'm open to getting either 2nd hand or new cameras.

More information to aid in the advice:
1. I have a budget of 2.5k max, the lower the better of course. this of course includes lenses.
2. Weight is kind of an issue because I'll be traveling in Europe for an entire year with hopefully just my backpack and camera. Also, irrelevant fact but I'm female and I don't really like carrying bulky photography equipment because I'm now traveling with 2 film cameras and 1 p&s and it's all too troublesome for me! I'll be traveling from a base location, so it's more of like week-long trips then study and then trips again.
3. I'll mostly be taking sceneries and architecture, with of course the cursory touristy pictures of people in front of landmarks, etc.

Next question: I'm planning to get 2 lenses or one if it's best able to suit my needs. Here are some of the lenses I've been researching on, and I still can't decide if I should get
(a) 10-22 with 24-105 or 18-200
(b) 15-85 or 18-200

of course I do know that (a) would mean a budget of $2000+ and (b)$1200+. I also know that some are L lens and some are not, But putting price aside, I guess the questions are as follows:
1. My concern is that for traveling, would it be more advisable to just get one lens which the wide angle capability and zoom instead of carrying around 2 lenses? I find myself really liking the capabilities of the 10-22 though, so I'm really undecided. Since I'm always going back to a base point, there is less problem with me getting 2 lenses and just bringing one out depending on where I'm going (ie, sparsely populated or not) so that i dont have problems with dust etc --> is this a good enough reason to get 2 lenses? heh
2. If say I'm going with just one lens, would the 15-85 be a better bet than the 18-200 (price irrelevant)? I'm just wondering if I'll use that much of the telephoto end because when I'm using my p&s and film cameras, i usually face the problem of lack of wide angle as compared to zoom.
3. alternatively, if i get the 10-22 and do not have the budget to get the 24-105 yet, which lens would be compatible for my needs? ie, some zoom (prefably more than the 55mm range)? Would the 18-200 more than sufficient or would it be dumb to get something which overlaps quite a bit with the uwa?

Yup, the line of questions is rather confusing, but I guess the foremost questions are
(a) 40 or 50d
(b) 1 or 2 lenses (if you can compare them - i'm concerned with convenience i guess)

I hope that the above does give sufficient information for advice from the more experienced photographers in the forum. I have done my research and would now like (1st hand) experience/advice. TIA!

 

[LenzLaw]

Since u are taking pics of landscape architecture and some casual pics, I don't suppose u'll miss telephoto that much, so u could probably use the 10-22 as ur main lens. As for the body, I'ld recommend the 40D over the 50d anytime. 15.1 mp is very high resolution indeed but it is nothing without a super sharp lens. Apart from the extra megapixels and a few minor extras like higher ISO reach (which I don't think u will want to use as it will be so noisy its unusable), AF fine tuning and and a better LCD i don't think there is anything else that is significant enough to justify the higher price.

As for ur second lens, if u don't mind third parties the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 f/2.8 will be an excellent lens. I actually think the basic 18-55 IS kit lens packs a lot of optical quality for the price u pay. Consider it if u have cash constraints.

In all, a 40D + 10-22 + 17-50 will be about $950 + $850 + $500 = $2.3k.

U might want to consider getting a simple flash as well. A 430ex will probably set u back another 300 bucks.

Hope this helps. ;]

 

[midicity]

Spend money on better lenses first. They're more likely to give you improvements in image quality per dollar spent vs spending on a body. Unless you have the budget to get the newest body + good lenses

My advice - 40D
1 Lens - 15-85
2 Lens - 10-22 + Tamron 17-50 f2.8

Like Lenzlaw said, get a flash too (430Ex)

 

[night86mare]

Basically, my sibling has a 400D which i've also used before and I'm planning to get a DSLR for myself. I'm currently deciding between the 40/50d and the 500d. Some of my photog friends have advised me to just skip the 500d since it's the same range as the dslr my sibling has. so i think i'll probably follow this advice and decide between the 40 and 50d instead.

then your photog friends are a bit weird.

they might as well say that since your sibling has a nokia basic handphone, you must get something more advanced since it's the same range.

unless you are planning to absolutely pool with your sibling - getting what you need, what you like, is far more important than just "filling in the blanks".

this road leads down to buying the entire range from 10mm to 800mm in terms of lenses to fill in the blanks. in which case, i wish you good luck. when you reach the longer focal lengths your pocket will burn. :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

My concerns between the 40 and 50d are, taking away price, I read that the 50d has rather bad high ISO performance, and because I'm thinking I'll be taking a lot of 'night' pictures considering it's already dark at 4pm in Europe, will the 40d be a better choice? I'm not too concerned with whether it's a newer model or not. Maybe the reviews I've read are biased but it seems that the 40d is a better choice than the 50d because of the better dynamic range and better performance with not-so-great lenses. What are your thoughts on this? Will the 40D be a better bet than the 50d? I'm open to getting either 2nd hand or new cameras.

that depends on which part of europe you're travelling to.

some parts of europe, it is probably not such a good idea to waltz around in the dark at 4pm. europe is not singapore. it is not as dangerous as some people make it out to be if you're alert, but there's also no reason to go around dashing into potential situations for trouble.

btw, i don't think you are interested in taking many "night portraits", even if you are, there is something called a flash to help with high iso problems. if you're talking about scenics, then you need a tripod, not good high iso performance.

 

[night86mare]

More information to aid in the advice:
1. I have a budget of 2.5k max, the lower the better of course. this of course includes lenses.
2. Weight is kind of an issue because I'll be traveling in Europe for an entire year with hopefully just my backpack and camera. Also, irrelevant fact but I'm female and I don't really like carrying bulky photography equipment because I'm now traveling with 2 film cameras and 1 p&s and it's all too troublesome for me! I'll be traveling from a base location, so it's more of like week-long trips then study and then trips again.
3. I'll mostly be taking sceneries and architecture, with of course the cursory touristy pictures of people in front of landmarks, etc.

2 film cameras and 1 p&s is way too overkilll.

granted, you are female, but i think focus should be on the weight of lenses and size it takes up, rather than the number of lenses.

for example, carrying a 800mm is going to be ONE lens, but it is going to be HUGE, and HEAVY.

when i travel most of the time i just have one camera body, 10-20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 70-300mm. all these are lightweight, relatively compact, and can fit into a bilingham hadley pro bag, which isn't that large. people are often amazed when i seem to be using a different lens every minute - "what, you can fit that into that tiny bag of yours? i know it looks like it's going to explode but still..?"

you say you're looking at 10-22 and 18-200. i don't know what the ballpark prices of canon lenses are; my question is whether you even need to use first party lenses. a sigma 10-20 isn't that horrible, and if grey, you can get it new at a pretty nice price last i remember. the old version, that is, the f/4-5.6 version.

a 50mm f/1.8 will be relatively cheap as lenses go, or if you like the 50mm f/1.4 will be alright. and tamron70-300 and sigma70-300 aren't really beautiful from 200-300mm, but they're value for money, lightweight, and pretty alright from 70-200 range.

some people will tell you "oh, landscapes only need wide angle".. then they are sorely mistaken.

what do you need for travel? any relatively modern dslr body will give you good enough high iso performance, you need more cf cards or a portable photobank, you need a tripod since you're into scenics, and a decent enough coverage from 10-200 will do you well enough. just make sure you are able to handle the gear, i won't know what your physique or tolerance is like.

 

[LenzLaw]

then your photog friends are a bit weird.

they might as well say that since your sibling has a nokia basic handphone, you must get something more advanced since it's the same range.

unless you are planning to absolutely pool with your sibling - getting what you need, what you like, is far more important than just "filling in the blanks".

this road leads down to buying the entire range from 10mm to 800mm in terms of lenses to fill in the blanks. in which case, i wish you good luck. when you reach the longer focal lengths your pocket will burn. :bsmilie:

How about the legendary 1200mm f/5.6L? :devil:

Anyway, I agree that u should get wat u like. I myself prefer the 450D over the 3 cams TS was deliberating over. Try them out first if u can.

 

[Rashkae]

If you are concerned about weight, you should not get a 40D or 50D.

 

[giantcanopy]

having one 40D/50D body should be lighter than ur current 2x film cameras and the PnS

From online it seems the 50D is pretty on par in high ISO department with the 40D. Functionality wise both will be good competent choices wun go wrong with either. You can get the 40D and save up abit more on the lenses.

Personally i would go for (a) 10-22 with 24-105, because i love the option of having a wider lens especially on a cropped sensor body.

ryan

 

[ayearabroad]

hey guys

thanks for so much for the replies. looks like i'll be looking into 3rd party lenses and doing more research to narrow down my choices. will post more qns if i have them!