Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

350D Kit or Body & another lens?

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:05:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am currently looking at getting a 350D to replace my S50. Main reasons for
the upgrade are I much prefer using an SLR (but my 35mm SLR has long being
gathering dust since the digital age) and I want better performance in low
light situations, the compact just does not cut it at higher ISO's. It will
be for general use so things like holiday snaps, but also indoor sports
events which is where my S50 lets me down a bit. I'm not wanting to spend a
fortune on equipment but I have read in some reviews that the standard kit
lens is not that hot. So would I be better off getting the kit or a seperate
body & lens? The most I would like to spend on a lens is a few hundred
pounds not £500+ like some reviews have recomended.

thanks

Gav

More about : 350d kit body lens

Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:33:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gav wrote:
> I am currently looking at getting a 350D to replace my S50. Main reasons for
> the upgrade are I much prefer using an SLR (but my 35mm SLR has long being
> gathering dust since the digital age) and I want better performance in low
> light situations, the compact just does not cut it at higher ISO's. It will
> be for general use so things like holiday snaps, but also indoor sports
> events which is where my S50 lets me down a bit. I'm not wanting to spend a
> fortune on equipment but I have read in some reviews that the standard kit
> lens is not that hot. So would I be better off getting the kit or a seperate
> body & lens? The most I would like to spend on a lens is a few hundred
> pounds not £500+ like some reviews have recomended.
>
> thanks
>
> Gav
>
>
I'm something of a fan of the kit lens, but people have been raving
about a Tamron 28 - 75 that sells for about $340 USD currently. Should
you decide to research this lens, set aside a few days to read through
the sometimes heated and furious exchanges.

Much civil unrest concerning the image quality this lens produces, and
apparently it varies from one copy of the lens to another...

If you don't need quite that much wide end, the Canon 28-105 USM is a
great choice too. (The 3.5 - 4.5). I've used one for a few years now,
and it's a poor man's carry-around lens. Very respectable results,
typically under $200 USD.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:52:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is the S50 a Canon?

If so keep the lenses you have and just use the kit lens for short focal
lengths.

It is generally regarded that the kit lens is a bargain for the
price.....(but not so good against more expensive alternatives).

"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:D 5qbiq$m32$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> I am currently looking at getting a 350D to replace my S50. Main reasons
for
> the upgrade are I much prefer using an SLR (but my 35mm SLR has long being
> gathering dust since the digital age) and I want better performance in low
> light situations, the compact just does not cut it at higher ISO's. It
will
> be for general use so things like holiday snaps, but also indoor sports
> events which is where my S50 lets me down a bit. I'm not wanting to spend
a
> fortune on equipment but I have read in some reviews that the standard kit
> lens is not that hot. So would I be better off getting the kit or a
seperate
> body & lens? The most I would like to spend on a lens is a few hundred
> pounds not £500+ like some reviews have recomended.
>
> thanks
>
> Gav
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert Barr <not@for.harvest> wrote in
news:gD3ge.557$1A6.300@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

> Gav wrote:
>> I am currently looking at getting a 350D to replace my S50. Main
>> reasons for the upgrade are I much prefer using an SLR (but my
>> 35mm SLR has long being gathering dust since the digital age) and
>> I want better performance in low light situations, the compact
>> just does not cut it at higher ISO's. It will be for general use
>> so things like holiday snaps, but also indoor sports events which
>> is where my S50 lets me down a bit. I'm not wanting to spend a
>> fortune on equipment but I have read in some reviews that the
>> standard kit lens is not that hot. So would I be better off
>> getting the kit or a seperate body & lens? The most I would like
>> to spend on a lens is a few hundred pounds not £500+ like some
>> reviews have recomended.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Gav
>>
>>
> I'm something of a fan of the kit lens, but people have been
> raving about a Tamron 28 - 75 that sells for about $340 USD
> currently. Should you decide to research this lens, set aside a
> few days to read through the sometimes heated and furious
> exchanges.
>
> Much civil unrest concerning the image quality this lens produces,
> and apparently it varies from one copy of the lens to another...
>
> If you don't need quite that much wide end, the Canon 28-105 USM
> is a great choice too. (The 3.5 - 4.5). I've used one for a few
> years now, and it's a poor man's carry-around lens. Very
> respectable results, typically under $200 USD.

Be sure to get a 50mm/1.8 prime too. The value for a lens of this
optical quality is unbeatable.

--

Bill
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:00:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The S50 is a canon compact camera, so I have no lenses. Only lense I have is
for a 35mm Minolta SLR, so I will need a lense. From what you say the kit is
probably the way to go for me then. I'm not serious enough about photography
to pay a heck of a lot for really fancy lenses.

Gav


"John Ortt" <JohnOrtt@Idontwantspamsonoreturnaddress.com> wrote in message
news:4280ba7d$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> Is the S50 a Canon?
>
> If so keep the lenses you have and just use the kit lens for short focal
> lengths.
>
> It is generally regarded that the kit lens is a bargain for the
> price.....(but not so good against more expensive alternatives).
>
> "Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
> news:D 5qbiq$m32$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> > I am currently looking at getting a 350D to replace my S50. Main reasons
> for
> > the upgrade are I much prefer using an SLR (but my 35mm SLR has long
being
> > gathering dust since the digital age) and I want better performance in
low
> > light situations, the compact just does not cut it at higher ISO's. It
> will
> > be for general use so things like holiday snaps, but also indoor sports
> > events which is where my S50 lets me down a bit. I'm not wanting to
spend
> a
> > fortune on equipment but I have read in some reviews that the standard
kit
> > lens is not that hot. So would I be better off getting the kit or a
> seperate
> > body & lens? The most I would like to spend on a lens is a few hundred
> > pounds not £500+ like some reviews have recomended.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Gav
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:22:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:D 5qbiq$m32$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
>I am currently looking at getting a 350D to replace my S50. Main reasons
>for
> the upgrade are I much prefer using an SLR (but my 35mm SLR has long being
> gathering dust since the digital age) and I want better performance in low
> light situations, the compact just does not cut it at higher ISO's. It
> will
> be for general use so things like holiday snaps, but also indoor sports
> events which is where my S50 lets me down a bit. I'm not wanting to spend
> a
> fortune on equipment but I have read in some reviews that the standard kit
> lens is not that hot. So would I be better off getting the kit or a
> seperate
> body & lens? The most I would like to spend on a lens is a few hundred
> pounds not £500+ like some reviews have recomended.
>
You will be more than pleased with the kit lens.
There have been lots of snotty comments about the build quality, but it
delivers good results.
Mine gets humped & bumped about all over the country and is still in good
nick.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:45:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm not wanting to spend a
> fortune on equipment but I have read in some reviews that the standard kit
> lens is not that hot. So would I be better off getting the kit or a
seperate
> body & lens? The most I would like to spend on a lens is a few hundred
> pounds not £500+ like some reviews have recomended.
>
The 350D is an excellent choice - I've had mine 7 weeks and can't fault it.

The kit lens - I found it o.k. if stopped down 2 stops off maximum. When I
did that it is better than the kit lens (35-70) I got with my EOS600 film
camera all those years ago. My first set of pictures taken on a sunny day
are as good as any I have seen from my film SLR. Where it excels is in its
lightness, it is a very easy carry round - also the 18mm focal length makes
it a useful wide angle. BUT, it is a slow lens and this can make autofocus
slow/difficult at f = 55mm.

I have bought a 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 USM. Results are good if it's stopped down
one stop off maximum apeture - results are considerably improved if you use
the RAW setting in the camera. This lens focuses quickly and quietly and
feels quite well built compared with the kit lens. But it's still a bit
slow - which is why someone is suggesting the 50mm f1.8. Yes it's quite
cheap, but I don't think too much of the one I bought - even though it is
the revered mark one. So it's for sale on eBay. I find it too needs to be
stopped down to get nice crisp pictures. Having said that, stopping it down
to f2.8 to get decent sharpness still makes it faster than the zooms. I am
thinking at the f1.4 version.

What you really need to save up for is an L series lens (or two). I bought
the 70-200mm f2.8 last Saturday. It is absolutely fantastic. The pictures
are technically superb, sharp at maximum apeture with brilliant saturation
and contrast - and it focuses very quickly (being f2.8 throughout the zoom
range). The only way to do justice to you 350D body/sensor is to stick an L
series lens on it. There is a down side, it's big and heavy. For the use I
am going to put it to that doesn't matter. But it does explain why I am
looking at the 50mm f1.4 as well.

One more point, don't feel that using 1600 ISO is undesireable. When the
camera is set on RAW the noise/grain is much diminished and I have a few
indoor shots taken with the 28-105mm, RAW and 1600 ISO that are first rate.
Using 1600 ISO will help obviate the slowness of the cheaper lenses.

John
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:42:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well there is your answer then, get the kit lens, it is fine and will take
your snapshots and you will print at 6x4 and the would will be happy.

"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:D 5qeqd$nkq$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> The S50 is a canon compact camera, so I have no lenses. Only lense I have
> is
> for a 35mm Minolta SLR, so I will need a lense. From what you say the kit
> is
> probably the way to go for me then. I'm not serious enough about
> photography
> to pay a heck of a lot for really fancy lenses.
>
> Gav
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:46:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Be sure to get a 50mm/1.8 prime too. The value for a lens of this
> optical quality is unbeatable.
>

Seriously, I have one and don't use it that much, I am usually looking for
wider or longer, with the crop factor the size is not that useful for
general shooting, good for some specific stuff but I find either my 18-50 or
28 mm a better choice.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:59:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in
news:y49ge.8959$31.7296@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

>> Be sure to get a 50mm/1.8 prime too. The value for a lens of this
>> optical quality is unbeatable.
>>
>
> Seriously, I have one and don't use it that much, I am usually
> looking for wider or longer, with the crop factor the size is not
> that useful for general shooting, good for some specific stuff but
> I find either my 18-50 or 28 mm a better choice.

The focal length on the 50mm is perfect for portraits on a dDLR. You
can't buy a sharper, faster lens for under $500, except for the
50mm/1.4. I didn't say that it is the ideal lens for a dSLR owner to
have as his *only* lens, but most owners should spend the $70 and
buy one for his collection. The low light shooting capability alone
makes it worth it.

--

Bill
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 10:47:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Woodchuck Bill" <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9652D9ABC6F24WoodchuckBill@66.250.146.159...
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in
> news:y49ge.8959$31.7296@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
>>> Be sure to get a 50mm/1.8 prime too. The value for a lens of this
>>> optical quality is unbeatable.
>>>
>>
>> Seriously, I have one and don't use it that much, I am usually
>> looking for wider or longer, with the crop factor the size is not
>> that useful for general shooting, good for some specific stuff but
>> I find either my 18-50 or 28 mm a better choice.
>
> The focal length on the 50mm is perfect for portraits on a dDLR. You
> can't buy a sharper, faster lens for under $500, except for the
> 50mm/1.4. I didn't say that it is the ideal lens for a dSLR owner to
> have as his *only* lens, but most owners should spend the $70 and
> buy one for his collection. The low light shooting capability alone
> makes it worth it.

You are correct. If you are doing portraits it will be handy, I do use mine
with extension tubes for macro but find I don't do all that much of that. My
28mm at F2.8 is not that much slower and I have a very large flash, the 50mm
plus crop factor is a bitch inside because it is not wide enough, also look
at something like a 30 or 35mm as that will give you the old 50mm
equivalent. Just making the point that the 50mm lens is not quite as handy
as it once was.
!