The "Magic Three"

[Foots]

Hi All,

Thanks for the warm welcome!

I have been taking pictures for about 6 years, first with a pocket camera, then my Lumix and now am ready for the big time.

After reading Bambi's thread, it seems in the DSLR the Nikon D5000 or the Canon Rebel T1i will meet my needs. I don't want anything that weighs more then that.

What I find difficult is choosing the lens(s) for the camera. I think Nikon has IS in the body by requires Nikon Lens while Canon has IS in the lens but you can use other manufacturers.

I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?

I can't really claim any specialty. I take the usual home, family, pets and garden photos. Other than that, I love the quirky, people caught unaware, skies and light. And, I have no aspirations to be a "professional" With my current camera I haven't been able to take night photos or even in dark places. I would like to learn that.

I print my own pictures usually at 8.5 x 11. I would like to go bigger.

Bambi, you got a good price - looks like you saved from list - are you a good negotiator?

Here is one of my first photos taken on the pocket camera - megapixels less than a cell phone today. It's not photography but just fun.

[Bambi]

Hey Foots, glad to be of help

Marko did a podcast on lenses (#58 I believe). He recommends spending more money on lenses then the camera. However, I am a little lost in looking at lenses so will just play with what I have for now until I can figure it out....

[Foots]

Thanks Bambi, I looked for one, but must have missed it.

[F8&Bthere]

I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?

Nikon and Canon are both in-lens stabilization, so the playing field is level in that respect.

For what you are describing in your post, I'd say my three picks- and I'll use the Nikon system as that is what I am more familiar with- would be as follows:

1. Get camera body with 18-55VR kit lens.
2. Then when I can afford it I'd add the 55-200VR lens
3. Then if/when I feel I want one fast lens for low light/indoors/compact needs I would spend the worth-every-penny $150 to add the 50mm/1.8 prime lens.

By my rough calculation a total spent of around CA$1200 (not including all the other goodies one may want or need soon enough like extra battery, memory cards, bag, etc)

I am quite sure most of what I've mentioned above can be applied to Canon brand as well

Now, if you go into a camera shop and mention the term "magic three" in the same sentence as Nikon, you'll probably get the salesman's heart pounding because that's what many people call the trio of pro zooms 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 max, but this trio would set you back a mere $6000+

[Bambi]

I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?

Nikon and Canon are both in-lens stabilization, so the playing field is level in that respect.

For what you are describing in your post, I'd say my three picks- and I'll use the Nikon system as that is what I am more familiar with- would be as follows:

1. Get camera body with 18-55VR kit lens.
2. Then when I can afford it I'd add the 55-200VR lens
3. Then if/when I feel I want one fast lens for low light/indoors/compact needs I would spend the worth-every-penny $150 to add the 50mm/1.8 prime lens.

By my rough calculation a total spent of around CA$1150 (not including all the other goodies one may want or need soon enough like extra battery, memory cards, bag, etc)

I am quite sure most of what I've mentioned above can be applied to Canon brand as well

Now, if you go into a camera shop and mention the term "magic three" in the same sentence as Nikon, you'll probably get the salesman's heart pounding because that's what many people call the trio of pro zooms 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f2.8 max, but this trio would set you back a mere $6000+

thanks F8 that is very helpful. I will avoid that phrase in the future....(unless I win a lottery)

[kat]

If you are in a big city, I'd suggest renting some lenses for a couple of days and test them out. You'll learn pretty fast what you like and don't like.

That is after you get your camera base. So I guess that may not be a handy idea.

Congrats on your upgrade!

[F8&Bthere]

Marko did a podcast on lenses (#58 I believe). He recommends spending more money on lenses then the camera...

Yes but when one is starting from scratch on a tight budget I would think that one can't possibly save enough on the body to enable them to upgrade to higher quality glass.

What I mean is if you are starting from scratch and have a budget of, say $1200 or less, then you can *maybe* buy one really good lens (even then would likely be a prime since most fast zooms from the major manufacturers are well over $1200) and no camera. Then you can just put that lens on a shelf like a trophy and admire it until you can afford a body to actually put it to use. OR you can start off with a decent body and kit lens package and get out there taking pictures and learning which focal lengths are the most important to you, for when you do have enough moolah to invest in better glass.

I think where Marko's sound advice really applies is when some amateur photographers tend to over-invest in their bodies while their arsenal of glass is perhaps mostly mediocre to poor quality. And also the financial investment side of it- top tier lenses hold their value quite well over the years, for resale, but camera bodies don't.

[Foots]

Thanks F8 - I don't want to lead those salesmen astray. What does the VR mean?

Kit - your suggestion is excellent. Then I don't get stuck with something I don't like.

Bambi, I listened to the pod cast and now I understand a little more.

Canon is charging $250 for the kit lens - unless there are some other giveaways, I don't think it's good value - would probably just buy the body. Particularly since F8 said I could buy a good 50mm f1.8 for $150.

[F8&Bthere]

VR= Vibration Reduction, Nikon's term for in lens stabilization. So typically if you don't see the letters VR in the lens model name, it doesn't feature any stabilization.

IS= Image Stabilization (I think), Canon's term, ditto the above.

[F8&Bthere]

...Canon is charging $250 for the kit lens - unless there are some other giveaways, I don't think it's good value - would probably just buy the body. Particularly since F8 said I could buy a good 50mm f1.8 for $150.

Well there's some qualifications involved, namely that the 50mm/1.8 prime is a mass produced normal compact "everyman's" prime focal length and since it is easy enough to manufacture and sells in sufficient quantities the price is quite reasonable. So I have the Nikon version and I've heard that Canon is the same- excellent optical quality and wide aperture for a very low price. Pretty much an anomoly. But when comparing the 50mm to any zoom lens, I would guess that zooms are more complex and thus expensive to manufacture. So it's kinda apples and oranges.

Usually the "kit" or entry level zooms are lower in price when they are part of the package- you just have to compare the pricing of body + lens to the price bundled to see where the value is. The good news is as Mad Aussie pointed out in Bambi's new camera thread, the kit zooms can be quite sharp, optically sound, and plenty adequate for many of our needs while we are on the learning curve. Just do your research and as Kat suggested, renting or trying them out is the best.