DSLR's

[Cookie28]

Hey guys I'm looking at buying myself a new camera and was just wanting some other peoples opinions.

At the moment I'm thinking of either a Canon 600D or a 650D. Opinions on these?? Any other suggestions??

And then with either of these I can get them with an 18-55, 18-55 and 55-250, 18-135 or an 18-200 lens. What does everyone think of these lenses?? I'm leaning towards the 18-135 at the moment just because it is reasonably versatile and from what I've seen it takes better photos than the 18-200. They're all canon kit lenses but at the moment I'm not looking to spend a huge amount of money on lenses.

Just looking for some help on what other people think I should buy.

Thanks, Mac

[THE_EGG]

Hey guys I'm looking at buying myself a new camera and was just wanting some other peoples opinions.

At the moment I'm thinking of either a Canon 600D or a 650D. Opinions on these?? Any other suggestions??

And then with either of these I can get them with an 18-55, 18-55 and 55-250, 18-135 or an 18-200 lens. What does everyone think of these lenses?? I'm leaning towards the 18-135 at the moment just because it is reasonably versatile and from what I've seen it takes better photos than the 18-200. They're all canon kit lenses but at the moment I'm not looking to spend a huge amount of money on lenses.

Just looking for some help on what other people think I should buy.

Thanks, Mac

The 650D is suppose to be a HUGE improvement over the 600D. Shutter speed and sensors are supposed to be the main updates along with faster and more accurate auto-focus.

I have an old 550D and I tossed up between that and the 600D at the time. I got the 550D because I didn't need anything that was extra on the 600D and I didn't this it was worth the extra money.

The lenses well, the ones that come as a kit with the DSLRs aren't great tbh. Mine came with the 18-55mm. I now also have a wide-angle Sigma 10-20mm and I found that the clarity is far better with a decent lens like this compared to the canon kit lenses. However, the kit lenses are great for use in poor conditions because you don't feel too bad if it becomes dusty or dirty (Rally Australia springs to mind for me ).

I think the 18-135mm would be a good choice. Generally from my experience I have found that clearer pictures are taken with lenses that have a smaller range but it isn't a dramatic difference, so I wouldn't worry about it unless you are a hardcore photographer.

A quick tip I would suggest is getting a UV filter and attach that to the lens once you buy it. For me the main reason is so if I accidentally bump the lens on something, it will only scratch the UV filter and not the lens. Making it FAR cheaper to repair/replace.

Hopefully this was helpful

[Cookie28]

Thanks for the reply it was REALLY helpful, and at the moment I'm still very much learning how to use a proper camera (family and friends cameras) so I think the basic lenses should be fine at least for a little while

And that tip about the UV filters sounds like a good idea too, thanks again

[McDub]

regarding UV lenses, i'd go against what has been said. I used them for around the first 4 or so years since i got into photography.
They tend to be more of a nuisance than anything. For example, night photography they can cause ghosting with point light sources, for some reason i find them trickier to clean than the front lens element, and of course your adding an additional layer of glass which can only be a bad thing as it serves no optical benefit (for digital).
so instead, you use a lens hood. Not only does this protect the front element from 95% of impacts, it also adds shock absortion for the entire camera. As you can sort of see in my last post on my photo blog, i happily rock climbed in Thailand with just the camera flung behind my back, condident that if the camera swung around that the lens hood would absorb most of the impact with the cliff
Captured Abroad

[AdamD]

Check out these threads for some useful info as well:

http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/foru...ice-67347.html
http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/foru...ras-72934.html

[bigfoot]

I'm not looking to spend a huge amount of money on lenses.

definately worth spending extra money on...you can have a ***** hot body buy if your lens isn't good your photos will turn out just ok

at the moment I'm still very much learning how to use a proper camera

your local community college will have courses - cheap and worthwhile

[THE_EGG]

regarding UV lenses, i'd go against what has been said. I used them for around the first 4 or so years since i got into photography.
They tend to be more of a nuisance than anything. For example, night photography they can cause ghosting with point light sources, for some reason i find them trickier to clean than the front lens element, and of course your adding an additional layer of glass which can only be a bad thing as it serves no optical benefit (for digital).
so instead, you use a lens hood. Not only does this protect the front element from 95% of impacts, it also adds shock absortion for the entire camera. As you can sort of see in my last post on my photo blog, i happily rock climbed in Thailand with just the camera flung behind my back, condident that if the camera swung around that the lens hood would absorb most of the impact with the cliff
Captured Abroad

Are we sure we aren't getting mixed up with a polarizing filter? I have found no difference with the UV filter. However if I'm setting up the camera for a really nice photo i'll just have the naked lens with a hood only if there is glare on the photo. I have found that using a hood during dusk can maoe pictures look a little gloomy tbh. But each to there own.

[thestu]

Captured Abroad

Amazing photography.

cookie get a 650. spend a LONGGGG time learning your camera then invest in some nice lenses.

[Cookie28]

Thanks for the replies everyone I've decided ill get a 650D but I'm still not certain what lens(es) I should get.

At the moment I'm leaning more towards the 18-135 or the 18-55 and 55-250 but I'm just not sure which one.

I'm also fairly certain that ill get a 50mm lens seperately if that could change anyone's opinions on the other ones I should get

Edit: I'll look into getting better lenses in the future when I feel that I've outgrown the ones I'll get initially

[AdamD]

I'm also fairly certain that ill get a 50mm lens seperately if that could change anyone's opinions on the other ones I should get

If you're going to get a good prime (the Canon 50mm 1.4 is excellent), I would start with that rather than a kit lens. A prime provides excellent quality, fast aperture, light weight, and can also be very good for forcing you to think more carefully about the composition of your shots - this is really important when beginning with a dSLR. I started out with a 450D, 50mm 1.4 and a kit lens, and I used the prime almost exclusively. The kit lens is now sold.

If you must have a multi-purpose zoom, I would suggest you look at the Canon 15-85mm - it's excellent quality and good value for what you get. You'll probably keep it long-term and won't feel like it's hindering the quality of your shots, even as your skills and expectations improve. The kit lenses you're considering at the moment are - to put it bluntly - pretty awful from a quality perspective, and you'll never get anything like the money you paid back on them if/when you sell.

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens Review