Indecisive newbie can't decide on glass to start his collection.

[Sheiky]

Ouch...I just looked at the current prices of the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and almost fell of my chair. 900 Euro's....ouch! That's 150 more than I payd for 1.5 years ago.


I'm sorry to say, but to me personally this is way too much. If I look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 I agree that it performs slightly less than the Canon. A little more chromatic aberation and no IS of course.


However it's 3 times cheaper! The Canon 17-55 is definitely not worth 3 times more.Don't forget you also need to buy a seperate lenshood for 35 Euro's... Crazy!





For that amount of money you can buy: Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Canon 85mm f1.8 and almost a third lens like the 50mm 1.4. (Even a 70-200 F4L fits the budget next to the Tamron)That seems like 10 times a better deal than the Canon 17-55 to me.


The only downside is that you don't get any Image Stabilization. But you do get great lenses and a lot more options. You could even keep the kitlens(since it's only about 70 Euro more than just a body) for the times you need IS. Just a thought.


I did love the Canon 17-55, but the current prices are just nuts [A]

[Chris White]

I shoot a lot of indoor/no flash activities so I tend to favor f/2.8 zooms and faster primes. Having said that I love my EF-S 17-55 and I have had no problems with it in three years of solid use. I mention this because every now and then you see someone going on about dust issues, which are not a problem in my experience. I use it less now that I have upgraded bodies, but it tends to be semi-permanently attached to my 50D.


I have never used the Tamron 17-55, but it is also well regarded, if your style includes lower light venues.

[ham]

Cheers for the advice everyone, I'll take it all on board when I (finally) make a decision.


But at the moment I'm thinking I'll just get it with the kit-lens, and see where I feel it's limited, I spotted pretty quickly where and when to use my Dad's lenses without really paying attention to what it was that was limiting them from an optical or technical perspective.


I'm definitely considering the 50mm prime. The effective 80mm it'll give me will be a good length, but I think the 130-140mm odd the 85mm option would give would be a little too long.


The only thing is, now that I'm content that they'll last me for a while, I'm thinking about splashing £80 extra on the 600d for the flippy screen, or even another £200 for the 60d.


I did tell you I was indecisive!





Oh, and for what it's worth, my dad's second lens he got in a double
lens kit with the camera and only bought because once he'd bargained a
card, battery grip, UV filters and lens hoods into it, it worked out
that he got it free. It's the EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM, and I
really don't like it. In fact it makes the kit lens look sharp and
true.

[Dr Croubie]

I was almost about to correct you and ask if you meant that he got the EFs 55-250, which most people tend to be happy with.


but then i checked, and there indeed is/was a 55-200. and i can't blame the shop for giving it away free.


Bryan is a bit polite in his review here: www.the-digital-picture.com/.../Canon-EF-55-200mm-f-4.5-5.6-II-USM-Review.aspx but the point is clearly made.


photozone was a bit more blunt: "The build quality of the lens is terrible - in comparison with a Coke PET bottle the Coke shines in this respect."


ouch.


meanwhile, i was just thinking, if your dad has a 400d, and they still had the 55-200 in stock, are you sure that the 18-55 kit lens is the IS version? I didn't think they were out that long ago. have a close look next time you see it. if it's the non-IS i can understand you not liking the quality. if it' the IS version, you may have a high-standard in IQ, be very careful which lens you buy then...

[Pieter]

The 55-250 IS is definitely a great addition to the kit of a starting photographer. It has IS and has a very usefull range. And yes, image quality is not very good, but at around 300 bucks it one of the cheapest telezooms available..

[ham]

i can't blame the shop for giving it away free

It really is a poor lens, hence why I'm keen to make sure I'm not stuck with anything similar. But it doesn't look like canon make any lenses that bad any more.

are you sure that the 18-55 kit lens is the IS version?

I think you mis-read me, it's the non-IS version. Again, it's not very good. I have a feeling I'll be happier with the IS kit lens, but ideally I want to get something a bit faster.





Also, is the 60d really £280 better than the 550d? Or even £200 better than the 600d? If the price differential was any less I'd be off out to buy the 60d now, but as it is I'm more tempted to go for the 600d.

[neuroanatomist]

Also, is the 60d really £280 better than the 550d? Or even £200 better than the 600d? If the price differential was any less I'd be off out to buy the 60d now, but as it is I'm more tempted to go for the 600d.

Depends on your needs. The 60D hasbetter build, better controls (e.g. rear dial), top LCD, a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror (brighter viewfinder), better AF system (still 9 points, but all are cross-type on the 60D vs. only the center point on the T3i/600D). The 60D has a full stop faster shutter (1/8000 s vs. 1/4000 s max), and the 60D also has much better battery life (almost 3 times as many shots on a full charge as the T3i/600D). The 60D also feels much different in your hand than an xxxD body.

[Dr Croubie]

Yeah, i've read over the OP again and you're right, i misread. I saw you mention the IS II kit lens in the third line, but that's what you could get new not what you had already, my bad.


and what do you mean by 'faster'? the 15-85 is actually slower (or the same) compared to the 18-55, up to 47mm. only faster is the 17-55 f/2.8. but again, 15-85 and 17-55 are both optically damn good, choose only between the zoom range vs low-light.


Don't bother with 17-40L on APS-C, the 24-70 f/2.8 is good but expensive, then you need a 10-22 or similar on the widest end to go with it.


.





also, comparing the 600D to 60D, i'm stealing what i wrote to someone else on another forum:


60d has better AF (9 cross type vs 1 cross + 8 normal)


60d has top lcd, 600d uses the back screen for reference


60d has pentaprism (better quality), 600d has pentamirror (cheaper/lighter)


60d has a bigger viewfinder (try it out in a shop to see if/how annoying a smaller one is for you)


60d has the electronic level


60d has flash sync to 1/250s, +-3ev comp, 600d to 1/200s, +-2ev comp.


60d does 5.3 fps for 16/58 shots (raw/jpg), 600d does 3.7fps for 6/34 shots.


60d has fullsize raw/mraw/sraw (to save card space), 600d only has fullsize.


60d has weather sealing (at least, to some extent)


60d battery apparently lasts longer (1100 vs 400 shots)


60d is aluminium and polycarbonate (755g), 600d is steel + polycarb (570g)


and it doesn't say it on the canon website, but the 600d can do 1-3x digital zoom when filming (using 'clean' sensor crop), i think up to 10x (using 'dirty' old-school digital zoom).


plus a few small things, like 1/4000s vs 1/8000 shutter speed (which you'll probably never reach unless you buy an f/1.2 lens or point straight at the sun), interchangeable focussing screens, live-view face detection, more custom functions, data verification kit compatibility may or may not mean anything to you.


ergonomically, the 60d is a fair bit bigger, has a back wheel instead of buttons, and more quick-control buttons on the top near the lcd (the 600d has them doubled with the 4-way buttons on the back)


.


so which of all that matters? 60D's better AF, weather sealing, more fps for more shots, all those lean towards more action/wildlife.


the lcd and the digital level i find particularly useful, but they're not worth the €300 difference on their own. the bigger viewfinder you'll have to decide yourself if it makes a difference. Battery lasting longer also helps for longer trips (or buy a spare, factor that cost in too)


.


And the phrase you'll hear a lot around here is "what do you want to use it for?" if your answer is learning, being creative, filming, street photography, landscapes, travelling light, then all of those point to the 600d.


the only reason to go above that would be for sports/action, not jamming it in your bag at the first sight of rain (but then you need a better lens for full weather sealing), and just a more professional-looking and -handling camera. If you shoot RAW then you don't need any of the gimmiky in-camera effects either way, photoshop what you want later.


.


ergonomics may also factor. personally, i've got a 7D which has the select wheel and joystick on the back, and dial by the shutter. 60d has the wheel and dial, 600d has 4-way back buttons and the dial.


I'm so used to using the joystick (for selecting af point) and wheel (+-ev in Av mode or shutter speed in M mode) and dial (aperture in Av or M mode), and i can just reach all the buttons by the top lcd with one finger by memory, that i can take almost any picture in any style without even removing my eye from the viewfinder (ok, i've had 10,000 shots of practice).


I tried my sister's 550D the other day, and i couldn't figure out a damn thing. but she's almost as fast as me because she's used to the way her camera is set up. So basically my view ergonomics-wise is that whatever you buy you'll get used to it after a while (just don't buy a better body and downgrade, then you'll notice the difference).


.


.


i'd always recommend better glass for a lower body to almost anyone, i learnt that by pairing the 70-300nonL with a 7D (6 months later i bought the 70-300L), definitely get the 600D over the 550D if the difference is only 80squid. for 60D vs 600D, how much is 200 quid worth to you? you presumably already know how much you like taking photos from borrowing your dad's, if you think you really want to get into photography long term (even as a hobby, doesn't mean you ever have to sell a photo), then 200 quid is nothing. but if it means missing a rent/mortgage payment then 200 might mean a bit more to you and go the cheaper option...

[ham]

Haha, it won't mean missing a rent payment, but it might mean waiting for ANOTHER month's wages before I can splash out (time goes incredibly slowly when you're waiting to buy a new toy!). It also might mean holding back on accessories like lens hoods, spare batteries (may not be an issue) a bag (borrowing my Dad's slingshot would be fine) and will definitely mean waiting a bit longer before I use anything better than the kit lens with it (I don't think I'll want to use either of my Dad's if I get the newer kit lens with whichever camera I buy).


Most of my photography is opportunistic so far, I've not been out somewhere specifically to take photos, but I do notice myself viewing the world differently and wishing I had the thing with me at least once a day, and when I do spend time taking photos, I can't put it down.


A lot of the features on the 60D are more than I need at the moment, but the question is will I get hooked and want/need them in the future? And if I do, will whichever camera I have by then need upgrading anyway? The only features that really stand out as being useful at the moment are the pentaprism viewfinder and the build quality of the thing. But then will the extra size hinder me when out and about? Will I be less tempted (and will the GF be more persuasve for me not) to take it out if it's a bit bigger and heavier?


I think the future upgrade point is probably the biggest one at the moment. I'll be more than happy with the 600D for a while, it's more than a good enough camera for what I'm using it for at the moment, and if the time comes when I want to upgrade, I'll have a set of lenses already, and either a very capable but smaller second camera, or an asset to either p/x or sell second hand.


Speaking of removing the quick-option buttons from the 4-way control, are the ones from the "zoom" buttons removed too? I'm forever finding myself trying to zoom in on a preview and accidentally changing the focus point setup. That might be worth £200 on it's own!





Thanks for your help chaps, I'll be sure to stick about on here and <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]pester you with more questions share my pictures in the future [Y]





Oh, can someone explain the advantage of cross-type focus points over the standard ones please?

[neuroanatomist]

A lot of the features on the 60D are more than I need at the moment, but the question is will I get hooked and want/need them in the future? And if I do, will whichever camera I have by then need upgrading anyway?

Possibly. Depends on how 'hooked' you get. Personally, I started out with a 500D/T1i...and in a few months switched to a 7D (and subsequently added a 5DII). But the xxxD cameras are quite capable, and IMO you're better off spending money on lenses, unless a body has a feature you definitely require (e.g. better AF and faster frame rate for sports/action, etc.).

can someone explain the advantage of cross-type focus points over the standard ones please?

All AF points detect contrast with a line-type sensor. Cross-type points (the center point on the 550D/600D and all points on the 60D) are sensitive to both vertical and horizontal lines, linear AF points (off center points on the 550D/600D) are sensitive to lines/contrast on only one orientation. The translation is that a cross-type point can lock onto more images features than a line-type point, so is better able to achieve a focus lock.