£700 to spend on starting in digital - advice wanted!

Jo Pedder · #1 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 12:03 PM

I've just received a lovely tax rebate and want to spend £700 on starting in digital.

(could possibly push to £850 but would like to keep some back) I'm considering the new Canon 400 and would like to be able to get a good telephoto and macro lens. I've started doing some research and have lost my way in a world of teleconverters and ring flashes and have lost my confidence in knowing what I actually need!

The kind of images I'd like to take include -

macro - from very close up invert work to plants
tele - probably not birds, but most likely to use photographing mammals from distance i.e. deer from across a field, or full framed water vole from across a canal bank.

any ideas or advice most welcome.

carlj · #2 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 01:55 PM

Jo, best advice I can give is to try out bodies before making a decision. We're a mixed bunch here, and would probably start recommending our own marques. As for zoom length, around 400mm would be ideal, but a 70-300mm may be all you need. The tamron I have with my KM5D is perfectly weighted for a walkabout lens, with a reasonable macro mode to 1:2. Set me back £100 brand new. And as I have anti-shake built in, don't need to worry too much, but with Canon, Nikon, Olympus you may need to factor in Image Stabilisation. Sony, Minolta, Panasonic and Pentax are currently only body stabilised cameras out there.

Hokum · #3 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 02:23 PM

Hmm What would i get for £700-850.... hmmm that’s not actually very much...

I have no favouritism for any brand, I’ve used all the SLR's except Pentax. So you have a warranty I’d buy new, not used as when you begin your likely to get issues, and maybe want to return stuff.
As you starting out, your not looking to print bill boards so resolution isn’t that important. 6mp is enough to print A3 happily, and your unlikely to go bigger than that. You want a body with handles well, with rules out the 350D and 400D, for some of your work anti shake isn’t important so thats not a necessity. ISO performance maybe of use which leads me to one camera. The Nikon D50, its what i would buy if i was starting, its FAST!, it fits your hand well and it isn’t a slouch when it comes to ISO performance.
So thats £325 (remember you want good glass, thats the key)
Ok now we have a body lets look at lenses:
Macro? If it must be 1:1 then something like the sigma 105mm maybe of interest at £278.99 or for more flexibility the 1:2 the 28-105 D £249 which give you some zoom too. Cheaper macro would be 50mm sigma at £162.99
Telephoto? You seem to want about 400mm... thats an issue, the cheapest is about £430 on its own for the 135-400mm sigma (and i don’t rate it very highly)... So lets look at something else? The nikkor 300mm f4 is £865 so thats out, the sigma 100-300 is 749.99 which is too much. To put this into context... i just spent £2000 on a telephoto lens... So we are down to 300mm f5.6 lenses... which isn’t long enough for the vole, but ok for deer (with the sensor crop factor the FOV is of about 450mm) Sigma and Nikon offer lenses within £250 which cover this so that maybe of interest. But i’d make sure you get a Tpod too.

If your not wanting to GO SLR, i’d look at the Panasonic FZ-30 etc. Good range of zoom but poor ISO. But cheaper than most SLR lenses!

GerryNick2 · #4 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 02:24 PM

Hi Jo

The new Canon 400D would be an excellent choice and is likely to be a very popular DSLR particularly with the 10.2 megapixels and the dust prevention additions. Buy the body only the kit lense is very poor and the £50 saved would be better spent towards a better quality lense.

On your budget you are going to be restricted on lenses with only £350 left after buying the 400D. A couple of good choices would be the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro circa.£350 & EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM circa.£350. oops budget blown. Worth considering going for a 70-300mm to start with and add the macro when funds permit.

An alternative would be to go for the Sigma equivalent, shop around and you could get both for £400.

At the end of the day its all about quality of image and how critical you are of image quality, a budget entry level lense is not going to give the same performance as a pro. 'L' class lense.
Where funds permit go for the mid-range lenses to avoid dissapointment.

Have a look on this site at lenses they have a good range to ponder over

Warehouse Express Online

Have a look in the photography forum and you will find a lot of advice on lenses and the best deals around.

Gerry

speckled wood · #5 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 02:25 PM

Before making the decision perhaps the best thing to do is to look through the Gallery at the various images and the the cameras and lenses used to take them, you should be able to build up an impression of what you want to achieve and then take your decision. Whilst SLRs are desirable some people do seem to be able take remarkable shots with cameras such as the "Ultra Zoom" Panasonics, Konika-Minoltas, Olympuses and Fujis.

Jo Pedder · #6 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 03:31 PM

thanks for the advice so far - although I knew it would be contradictory!

I've got questions about your recommendations, but I'll do a bit more research this weekend first, and have a look through the image Gallery for kit tips and get back to you.

thanks again

Jo

Boddie · #7 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 04:13 PM

I'd be careful not to try to do too much too soon. Get a decent body and worry about only one lens. Concentrate on one discipline. Get to know your camera, then later get more lenses.

Think about the time of year and your opportunities.

If it were me I'd get a Canon 400D and a Sigma macro. Proper telephoto work costs dough. If you are still wanting to go down that route later in all realism you may need to spend the same amount again for a proper telephoto lens.

The difference between a 300 quid telephoto lens and a Bigma for example is that within weeks you will be bored of the 300 quid lens, want to upgrade to a Bigma, finding you get nothing for the 300 quid lens, second hand, and it will end up surplus to your requirements.

For example I better there are plenty of photographers that have many lenses they once rated and now they never use. My 28-300 Tamron is a perfect example. I cannot imagine I will ever use it again. Shame, as I did love this lens once.

If you can get the 400D body only I'd happily send you the standard 18-55 mm lens as I have ones I have never used and that never will get used. They are both brand new. They are fine for parties and snapshots and stuff like that but if you can get the £50 off it is better spent elsewhere.

With the rest of your bar I'd get a decent bag and some small study guides to really go back to basics on composition, lighting etc.

eeyore · #8 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 05:45 PM

as a few others have said 850 notes isnt very much in the DSLR world - you are looking at circa 500 for a body, around 300 for a decent macro lens , and anything up to a k for a long telephoto (bigma is around 700 notes)

So if you are starting out in digital I would say either take boddies advice and buy a body and one lens , or get a decent bridge camera - a lot of people on here have had a lot of succes with the FZ30 , check out photos by Matt xyz and Gill Catton.

Jo Pedder · #9 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 05:49 PM

That's a very kind offer Boddie, I'll take you up on that - thanks. The reason why I'm keen on getting both a telephoto and macro lens is that I have this money now, and I know it will be hard to save up for kit if i decide i want to get a tele later. I feel guilt free spending a tax rebate as i've been overpaying for over a year, so it's almost like i've saved up, but if I've got money spare month by month it should go on the mortgage, babies trust fund, carpets etc!

If i really do have to choose between macro and tele that would be really hard. I'm more interested in the subject matter that I'd be stalking with a tele - mostly mammals, but photographically really interested in shapes and patterns, which I'd be able to explore with a good macro lens. On top of that I'd like to photo reptiles, and usually come into contact with them at short/medium ranges. Tough choices and a trip to the library to get some photography books out (I have a couple but am moving house soon and have boxed all my books!) lots of weekend reading ahead! I'm probably going to find out that I can't really afford to get something decent even if i do just go macro (I've had a quick look at ring flashes and they seem really steep too).

ah well, I shall log back on tomorrow a wiser man i hope!

Boddie · #10 (**permalink**) 29-09-2006, 05:56 PM

What you need to think about Jo is that with a substandard telephoto lens your pictures wont be that good. This can be very frustrating indeed as you just cannot get 'that shot'.

With the money going towards a macro lens there is absolutely no reason why you can't get macro shots akin to those in the galleries with a bit of practice.

In all realism to do telephoto correctly you will need a £700 plus lens and loads of practice. As an example, look at Barbara's pre and post Bigma telephoto images. Chalk and cheese.