A good DSLR Body, Lenses, Kit

[filmguy123]

I've been doing video for a long time, but I'd like to get into still photography some more. I know Nikon and Canon make excellent cameras, but I'm not sure what a good general, overall setup would be. I know the bodies can range from $1k-$8k (or even more?), and I know there's a whole bunch of lenses...

What would be the best body to start with (Nikon VS Canon; what model/why),
Best 3 lenses to start with (+why)
And essential + most useful accessories...

For around $3-4k (if it's possible at that price point)?

[Ken K]

Expect some good Nikon vs. Canon flames/debates here... ;)

I've mostly been a Nikon guy, but I'm really agnostic when it comes to brands. Use the tool that's best for the job. I'm actually selling my Nikon D300 and all of my Nikon and Zeiss lenses. It's time to move to the Canon 5D. For $4620, you can get yourself a full-frame Canon 5D ($1900), a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L lens ($1360) for your wide angle and a Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L ($1360) for your zooms. Or if you want to save some money, get the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L for $650.

That said, I absolutely LOVE my D300. The feel and ergonomics of a Nikon are top notch. :)

Also depends on what you're shooting... landscapes, sports, weddings?

[filmguy123]

I'm shooting:

- Sports
- Weddings
- Landscapes
- Portraits
- City/Town
- Everything.... :)

I hear the Canon L-series are excellent lenses... but I don't know a lot about lenses, what do you look for exactly as for as specs in a good lens?

Also, I hear the 5D full frame sensor is for wide angle stuff... but I hear the burst shooting is half of the 40D, making it not as nice for sports...?

And for 3 lenses, so I want:

- A wide (best choice being 16-35mm)?
- A normal (what would this be)?
- A telephoto (100-400mm)?

Is there anytime I'd want more than 400mm telephoto?

And, why would I ever want to get a fixed lense (ie a non zoom lens?)

[Ken K]

LOL... hey man! It just dawned on me who I was talking to. :) Dude, I put my Nikon stuff up on Craigslist. You should but it. :tongue:

Yeah, the 5D does 3fps and the 40D does 6.5fps. Most of what I'm shooting is not sports, so that wasn't a concern of mine. If you need that, you may want to take that into consideration.

If you went the route of the 40D or something similar with the smaller sensor size, you'd most likely want a completely different line of lenses, like the 10-22mm for wide. I also have a D300 that shoots 6fps (8fps with the battery grip) and a Tokina 12-24mm for sale. ;)

For the 5D, a good normal midrange would be the 24-105mm, which you can get as part of a bundle from places like Amazon and Adorama. The 24-105mm normally runs just over $1000, but you can get it for $700 if you buy it as a kit with the 5D.

If you want more than 400mm, you can get a 1.4x or 2.0x extension. The 2.0x would give you 800mm, but you'd lose light and a little image quality. I've seen some glorious moon shots with that combo, though!

Fixed lenses can typically give you a little better image quality (but not always - depends on the lens) and lower light capability. Canon's got a 50mm f/1.2 and an 85mm f/1.2 for instance.

If you end up shooting sports, you should come shoot some dodgeball games once the league starts up at the end of the month. :D And we should go grab some shots of Portland once you're all set up.

[alveraz]

I would consider a D80 and maybe a 70-300mm, 85mm and a walk-around lens, that should cover it and you'll get all four items for around 2500. Giving you plenty left over for extra goodies. I've done all my professional work using the D80 and that 70-300 lens so I'm totally biased, but it proves that inexpensive hardware can be used for anything if you know what you're doing with it. Here's what I've done with this setup: www.zampanophoto.com

Take that extra couple grand you saved and buy a used lowpro bag, SB600 and maybe a monopod.

Just a thought

[filmguy123]

The Nikon D300 + the Nikon 17-200 lens looks like a nice starting setup possibly?

Ken - I'd sure consider that, except I won't be ready to buy until late this year or early next!

[DivotDan]

D300 is awesome, but do it justice and buy better glass than that. 17-55 Nikon would be great for that camera for indoor work. I agree with Alveraz on the 70-300. It's usually used outside so not too big of a deal that it's a little slow. I have the VR model and it's awesome.

[filmguy123]

how do you know what's good glass though? What's wrong with the 18-200 zoom?

[DivotDan]

Typically, the faster the lens, or the more light it can pass through the glass, the better it is. Doesn't mean the 18-200 is "bad" as I kinda alluded.....but just that it is a slower lens than I care to keep on my camera. Also, know off the bat that fast lenses will cost you more......and you will never meet a person that tells you it wasn't worth the cost.

There are a few exceptions. I always tell people to get the $100 50mm f/1.8. Can't beat it for the price. Alveraz also mentioned the 85mm, which is also awesome but cost a little more. Either is a great pick.

As for the 18-200, there is much debate among photographers as to its merits. Many say it is a good walking around lens or "vacation" lens since it covers a large zoom range and supposedly keeps you from having to take "a bunch" of lenses with you. On the down side it is an f/3.5-5.6 lens, so not very fast for low light situations. There are people on this board that have it and love it.

I'm more from the camp of, you bought a digital SLR for a reason....so you can change lenses to fit your needs. So I don't think people should whine about having to carry the gear with them (not that you or anyone else is doing that).

All that said, you need to buy what works for you. If I was in your boat looking for the versatility that you want....I'd do the D300 if you want to go new (or a D200 if you want to buy used and save a few $$$, but they are vastly different cameras and the 300 is worth the money if ya got it), a 17-55 f/2.8, a 70-300 VR (great for outdoor sports), a 50mm or 85mm f/1.8, and maybe a 3rd party super wide angle.....like the Sigma 10-20 or the soon to be released Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (which I really want btw). I'm racking you up quite a bill here, but if you are really doing wedding photography or indoor sports you will also want the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Oh yeah, and as someone else mentioned.....you'll want a speed light too.....so carve out another $180-300 depending on the model you choose.

[filmguy123]

cool thanks for that great and detailed feedback. Just wondering - why would I want a 50mm or 85mm dedicated non zoom lens when I have a 17-55 and 7-300 that would be only a little slower...?

Also, 70-300... is there anything you'd recommend that goes to 400? 300 seems a little short for some shots in a large gym, and 400+ seems like it would be helpful for CUs when shooting football?

[DivotDan]

None zoom lenses, or primes.....are the freaking cats meow! f/1.8 is 1 & 1/3 stops faster than a constant 2.8. Go with the 1.4 and it's a full 2 stops faster For the 1.8 thats the difference in ISO1600 and ISO~660 in low light & the difference in ISO1600 and 400 for a 1.4 lens. That's a big difference. Plus, there are less elements in them and they typically make a better bokeh than zooms.

As for the 300mm zoom.....for the money, the 300mm will get you in there. For new lenses, the cheapest way to 400mm is the 200-400mm f/4 lens. It's made for outside shots of nature and sports......oh yeah....and it cost $5k {gulp}

I think you'd be shocked at how much you can get out of that 200 or 300mm zoom. With a little cropping you'll look like you shot with a 500mm lens.

[after_effects]

filmguy, im not sure how much you know about photography, but get this book http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Photography-Book-Scott-Kelby/dp/032147404X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213569722&sr=8-1

It taught my a lot by giving little tips as i shot, then eventually i didnt need to take the book with me shooting. My friends also had higher end camera bodies and prime lenses and all I had was a Pentax K110D with the kit 18-55 lens, but i was able to take better pictures then them because i knew how to shoot subjects properly(like getting tack sharp, not shooting down on children/flowers, keeping my horizon lines from the dead center, etc.) Also the 2nd book from the link i gave you tells you a lot about flash, which i found very helpful.

Hope this helps

[filmguy123]

Thanks a ton DivotDan. I see - that makes perfect lens. The lenses you mentioned, do you have any specific brands/recommendations? I'm looking on BH but the list is a little overwhelming... I'd like to get the best glass I can.

So I guess...

- What speed light?
- What 50mm or 85mm (why would I choose one over the other, price not being a factor?)
- What 17-55, 70-300, 70-200?

[DivotDan]

I'll give you some links to the products I was talking about. As for picking a prime, it's just personal taste....but really they all rule.

SB-600
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/323882-USA/Nikon_4802_SB_600_Speedlight.html

SB-800
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300467-USA/Nikon_4801_SB_800_Speedlight.html

50mm f/1.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

50mm f/1.4
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97413-USA/Nikon_1902_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

85mm f/1.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/84151-USA/Nikon_1931_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_85mm.html

85mm f/1.4
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/108421-USA/Nikon_1933_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_85mm.html

17-55 f/2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

70-300 VR
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html

70-200 f/2.8 VR
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html

[filmguy123]

awesome! thanks. I think I'll tend towards the higher-end models. Only one question:

Is there a higher end 70-300, that is f/2.8 that you'd recommend? Rather than buy two lenses (70-300 + 70-200) that seem to overlap... I'd rather just spend more and get a 70-300 that has better low light (f/2.8) and cost more, even if it does cost a bit more. Would that make sense to go that route? Any suggestions?

Also, I'll check out that super wide angle you mentioned when it is available, as I'd like one of those... and the only other lens I think I'd want to go with would be a good macro lens as I really like extreme CU shots...

So far my total is at ~$4500... I'm guessing it will be around ~$8000 with the addition of those lenses?

Any other needed accessories?

The way I figure, I spent $8000 for my video camera setup and that didn't even include mic's, editing software, etc. $8000 isn't so bad for a complete still photography setup...

[DivotDan]

There is no lens like what you are saying the the price range you are talking.

honestly, if your budget is 8K....get the D3 and full frame lenses.

You could do the D3, 70-200, 24-70, 50mm 1.4, and a SB800. That would give you an awesome start. Maybe later add the 14-24 2.8 and you would be set.

[filmguy123]

I think for $8k though, I'd rather start with the D300 and better glass... since glass never really goes outdated, I'd rather put the money there, and upgrade the actual camera body further down the road, since that tech is changing so rapidly.

What about the Canon 5D's upgrade when it comes out (supposedly) later this year? It's supposed to be better than the 40D in every area + have everything the 5D offers (ie full frame) + more improvements...

ALSO - are the canon lenses compatible with the nikon body, and the nikon lenses compatible with the canon body... if a converter is used? If so, are there drawbacks to a converter? I'm basically wondering... once I commit to a camera body from either Nikon or Canon, and I buy lenses for it, and I "stuck" with that brand unless I sell everything used and then start over?

[DivotDan]

I don't know much about canon. The only thing I would say about the plan you have is that you might want to buy all full frame lenses if you plan to upgrade bodies later....since it will most likely be a full frame sensor that you upgrade to. All of the lenses I suggested with the exception of the 17-55 and Tokina SWA are all full frame. If you want to invest in lenses, I would scrap the 2 I just mentioned and get Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. They are full frame and would work for later FX digital bodies as well as their film cameras like the F100 of F6.

It's so much fun spending other peoples $$$. Let me know when you get it all and I'll come show you how to use it. ;)

[Ken K]

A similar Canon kit (and pretty much what I'm getting to replace my Nikon gear) which would give you full frame all around - camera and lenses - would be:

Canon 5D - $1900
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 - $1360
Canon 50mm f/1.8 - $90
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 - $1574

Total = $4924


The Nikon kit with D300 (smaller DX frame) that you would have to upgrade later for full frame, but have full frame lenses now would be:

Nikon D300 - $1700
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 - $1569
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 - $1700
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 - $1625

Total = $6594

You can always swap out that 24-70mm f/2.8 for a 50mm f/1.8 for $115, which brings the total to $5009, but you lose the 35mm option (on a future full frame camera). For the Nikon D3, add another $3300 to the totals.


This is part of the reason I'm switching to Canon. For me, I'd much rather have full frame right now for landscapes and nature photography. I didn't want to buy Nikon's full frame lenses and not be able to take full advantage of them yet... who knows when they'll have a full frame solution in my price range? The D3 is way beyond my range, but the Canon 5D was just a little bit more than my D300 and their lenses completely filled my need/want.

Tough decisions for sure!

[Moojangles]

ya, Nikon needs to come out with an affordable full-frame to compete with Canon in that sense. Not that the D300 isn't amazing its just that people want full-frame.

They also need to update the 70-200 vr especially with the reviews its getting on a full-frame camera.

[DivotDan]

You can always swap out that 24-70mm f/2.8 for a 50mm f/1.8 for $115, which brings the total to $5009, but you lose the 35mm option (on a future full frame camera).

Nah, all the Nikon primes work on 35mm film or full frame digital cameras. The advantage of the Canon kit is a super sharp camera and you would be shooting full frame (good for landscapes and general lack of noise). Although I do think the D300 is a much better camera with about 3 year more technology in it. A more proper comparison would be a 5D and a D200 since the were made about the same time.

As for the 70-200 reviews, I wouldn't read too much into it. Those people have too much time to test and not enough time shooting. From all I've heard it doesn't really make that much difference in the end.......but then again I have not had the opportunity to use it on a D3.....only on an F100 (I didn't have an issue on film for what it's worth).

[filmguy123]

It sounds like a 5D Mark II would be pretty killer...

I played with the D300 and D40 (they didnt have the 5D in stock) at Best Buy the other day... they seemed pretty similar as far as feel and functions, obviously the button lay out is different.

I guess I am wondering, what would make someone prefer one over the other in terms of erogonimcs or what not? IE, once the 5D upgrade is out, if price isn't a key factor, why would I still consider the Nikon over the Canon?

[filmguy123]

Ken, thanks for the round up! I am wondering: on the Canon, 35mm-70mm is "uncovered" by any of the lenses, except that 50mm - but for the Nikon lens set, you have lens listed that cover the full range of focal lengths there. Why the gap?

Also, why is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 so dang cheap?

[Ken K]

Nah, all the Nikon primes work on 35mm film or full frame digital cameras.
Heh... I was trying to word that properly and I failed. :) What I meant was that if you substitute the 50mm for the 24-70mm, you lose the 35mm focal length, because the 14-24mm doesn't reach that. The Canon 16-35mm does. And I threw the full frame comment in there, because if you wanted the equivalent of 35mm focal length on a D300, you could get that on the 14-24mm, but not on a D3/full frame. Hopefully I explained that better...


Ken, thanks for the round up! I am wondering: on the Canon, 35mm-70mm is "uncovered" by any of the lenses, except that 50mm - but for the Nikon lens set, you have lens listed that cover the full range of focal lengths there. Why the gap?

Also, why is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 so dang cheap?
The reason I suggested a 50mm in the Canon lineup is because while they do have a 24-70mm lens, you can get by with the 16-35mm, 50mm and 70-200mm. That covers your common focal lengths. Typically if you buy primes in that range, they're 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. And those three lenses cover that. I'd much rather have that tiny lightweight 50mm than another big lens like the 24-70mm. My 16-35mm will cover the 35mm focal length.

I don't know why the 50mm f/1.8 is so dang cheap, but I'm not complaining! It's a good little lens for what it is. If you make the jump to the f/1.4, it's $325. If you want to get crazy, they also have a 50mm f/1.2 for $1300.


Regardless of which system you go with, you really can't go wrong. Both Nikon and Canon make excellent cameras and lenses and you'll be happy no matter which one you buy. And it's all about the photographer... if you look at the Nikon and Canon user threads, you'll see awesome pictures with both systems. This talk about which system to actually get depends on your needs/wants/uses.

[DivotDan]

Ah, I see your point. I just don't get caught up in the whole cropped sensor vs. FX. FX only really makes the wide angle better and makes an upgrade in image quality.