60D Kit Lenses

[warrerj]

Hi people. I'm new to this forum and hope to get some advice.

I've decided to get my 1st DSLR. I've had a 35mm SLR for years and have a few digital compacts which i use in manual mode so I'm used to the basics. Injuries have just about put pay to my other hobbies (kayking & mountian biking) so I thought I'd try to get more into potography. I'm thinking I'll shooting mainly landscape and sports (if I can't play I can take pics instead :-) ) with maybe a bit of potrait as well.

I've got a budget of upto about £1200 for body and lens(s). I've got a load of filters, tripod etc from my 35mm. I think I've made my mind up on the 60D unless sombody can tell me I've made the wrogn choice.

So my main question is are the kit lenses with the 60D any good or am I better off getting body only and getting better lenses? I was thinkign to start a range like the 17-85mm would get me started until I can save for more lenses.

I've always been told to spend on the glass. But looking at prices most of the L glass is out of my price range. Are the non-canon pro lenses (e.g. Sigma pro lenses) worth looking at ? OR shoudl I make do with the kit lenses and save for the Canon L's

I know there's alot of questions but hope they all make sense.
thanks

[donoreo]

Welcome to the forums! I think that is a good range to start. What was your old 35mm? If a Canon with EF mount lenses they would work on your new camera.

You can get good glass without spending on L lenses. Sigma does make some very good lenses. Post about a couple of lenses and a more accurate comparison can be done. There will probably be someone that has used both.

[warrerj]

my 35mm is real old school. none of this posh AF stuff all manual. It's a Praktica but i can't remember the model it's about 20+ years old now.

If i went for body only then looked at lenses am I right in thinking that on a 60D a you should multiply the focal length by 1.5 if it's a full frame lens ? So if I went for Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM I really be getting 36-105mm (ish) or is it not quite that simple?

Also is that lens worth the extra over the kit 15-85mm ?

[donoreo]

You can probably find a converter and still use some of that old glass! The multiplier for Canons is 1.6 (Nikon, Pentax and Sony are 1.5). Still your calculations are about right. Or say screw it and get a full frame

Someone else will have to answer the other questions, my knowledge is more limited. I only use the 18-55 IS that came with my 450D for my "standard" lens.

[thefonz78]

Its a great camera you should look at the Nikon d5100 as well. I personally think its a better camera and went for this. It's better high iso and dynamic range performance sold it for me. Its £600 its a great camera. I would have a play with the both instore and see what feels nicer.

[wavemachine]

Originally Posted by thefonz78

Its a great camera you should look at the Nikon d5100 as well. I personally think its a better camera and went for this. It's better high iso and dynamic range performance sold it for me. Its £600 its a great camera. I would have a play with the both instore and see what feels nicer.

Good advice there that's what I did and ended up buying a different camera to the one I intended (it was a Canon instead of a Nikon ).

I think TBH there is not a lot in it between Canon & Nikon and at the end of the day it is what you prefer handling and usability wise.

With regards to kit lenses Canons are a lot better (they used to be pants so much so my local shop refused to sell them and substituted a Sigma instead) than they used to be and are perfectly usable and certainly a good starting point until you decide what you want to do, google around for reviews on the lens range your interested in, look at similar focal ranges from Canon, Tamron and Sigma. If you find something you prefer then see if a deal can be struck with a local camera shop when buying all the gear together obviously if you go online it will be more difficult but having said that I was able to haggle via e-mail for studio lights and an IR trigger.

One word of advice get a print out of all the kit you want at the cheapest price from a reputable online dealer (not someone that ships from abroad or deals in grey imports), go into a local dealer and see if they can match it I did that when I bought my 7D and actually got the lot a few quid cheaper. I guess by doing that he new he had a sale and I was prepared to go elsewhere this also makes life easier if you have any issues with the gear.

[warrerj]

Thats just made my decidion even more difficult. cheers guys !

I've just got kit review overload at the moment. I really don't know what to do for the best

If I stick with the 60d for now .....

Looking at some reviews it seems on the 60d unless I spend £600+ on a lens upgrade the kit 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS is as good as any and at £80 with the kit looks like a good option. My concern with that is I would VERY quickly decide I needed a lens with a longer range. I did think maybe the EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM would be a better option but at £600 ish it's not a cheap lens. If I'm spendign that much do i then go for the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX IF HSM at £630 instead ???

THEN I got to thinking if I'm goign to spend an extra £600 should I stick with the kit 18-55mm and get a 70-200mm f4 L at about £450 instead. That would give me even more options. But would I regret not gettign the IS version ????

Can anybody tell me what to go for ?????

Apart from thatg I have 1 other question. I want to get a filter for protection. I always had a skylight filter on my 35mm lenses but reading the PR article on filters it seems to say a UV filter is a better option with digital? Also I seem to remember there only really bign 1 or 2 options on skylight filter and they were quite cheap. The Hoya Pro 1 UV filters are about £60-£70 is a UV filter a UV filter ? would I really notice the difference between the Hoya Pro1 and a £4 UV filter from ebay ??

Sorry for so many questions but everytime I think I've found an answer I seem to find another article tellign me different.

[thefonz78]

Lots and lots of questions! Well the 15-85mm is pretty wide at 15mm so if you shoot landscapes this might be wide enough for you and not have to go to the expense of buying a dedicated wideangle lens. If you are thinking of go down the 3rd party lens route i wouldn't go down the sigma 24-70mm f2.8 route at £600 I would get the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 which is sharper and only £300-£350. Tamron also make a very good kit equiv lens, the 17-50mm f2.8 which is much sharper and fast than the kit lens and only costs £240 on amazon.

The pro1 uv filters have a low profile rim to stop vignette which is a problem on wideangles. £60-£70 is the prices for polarizers and neutral density filters. You can get a hoya pro 1 uv filter for about £20 on amazon.

If i had £2000 to spend it would look a bit like this

Nikon D5100 body £525
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 £500 (Sigma 10-20mm £400 the Tokina is worth the extra £100)
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 £270
Nikon 70-300mm VR £365
Nikon 50mm f1.4
Giottos MTL9351B & 5001 head £85
yongnuo yn465 speedlight £40

Woops i've spent to much and you will need a bag and a few filters too!

[wavemachine]

It is a very difficult choice and really depends on what you want to shoot, I have the 15-85mm and it is a nice lens although it is not without it's issues suffers a bit from CA and barrel distortion but it is a pretty good compromise and a good walkabout lens. I did look at the sigma when I bought my 7D but it was a tad soft for my liking but that may have just been a poor sample of that particular lens as I have heard very good reports about them.

I think if I was in your shoes I would probably opt for the kit lens, find out what I like shooting and upgrade from there once I have got to grips with the camera. If you do go for the kit lens then I am sure you will find a use for it when you have upgraded or even still get a few quid on Ebay but it will buy you some time to decide what you want to do.

With regards to UV filters it is another element of glass if it is poor quality then it will effect the image I guess by going for a cheap one then you are taking a risk I guess you could take the gamble and take a shot with and without it and see what effect it has although I would be inclined to get a mainstream one, I have seen examples of filters which are poorly manufactured and have damaged the filter thread on the lens or have become jammed and have been very difficult to remove.

You are not restricted to skylight or UV though there are some ultra thin lens protectors as well.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by warrerj

Looking at some reviews it seems on the 60d unless I spend £600+ on a lens upgrade the kit 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS is as good as any and at £80 with the kit looks like a good option. My concern with that is I would VERY quickly decide I needed a lens with a longer range. I did think maybe the EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM would be a better option but at £600 ish it's not a cheap lens. If I'm spendign that much do i then go for the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX IF HSM at £630 instead ???

Suggest you consider the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens at £349 and get the Canon 70-200mm F4 L. The Sigma 17-70mm is loved by all who use it and worth every penny. As to UV filters, I don't use them myself and have never had a problem. AS long as you can hold a lens steady then you shouldn't miss IS. I have the Nikon 300mm F4, which doesn't have VR and never had a problem holding it steady, but normally keep the shutter speed at 500s.