cmschmie

I hate to start another opinion thread, considering most opinions on Acurazine are "DO IT!!", but in this sub-forum people are pretty understanding. I apologize since this post will ramble a bit.

A quick background:
I am still pretty much a noob at photography, but getting better. I no longer use the "point and shoot" pre-programed modes
I currently have a Rebel XT (w/ kit lens and the "nifty fifty")
I've been saving up for a Canon 50D (w/lenses and accessories) for purchase late this summer/early fall...

I found out yesterday that there is a VERY good chance that I'll be in Germany for work for a couple weeks, possibly a month, in May and I would LOVE to have a shiny new camera for the trip. Problem is that I haven't saved that much money yet. So I am just going have to start with a simple kit.

I priced (using B&H) a 50D (w/ 28-135), bag, memory cards and filters and I get ~$1800.
I also priced (using B&H) a 50D (w/ 18-200), bag, memory cards and filters and I get ~$2100.

These prices seem about right?

I'm leaning towards the 28-135, but I think it is because of what my kit will ultimately include: 50, 17-55, 28-135, 70-200 f/4, and a GOOD tripod/head combo.
-------
What is your opinion on the 28-135 vs 18-200?

Is B&H going to be the best bang for the buck? or Adorama, Amazon, local shop?

Should I just wait, get XT cleaned up and bring that?

Again I apologize for the rambling post, but will appreciate any input.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

My friend isn't a fan of the 28-135 ever since he went l lens , but i say for a traveler the 18-200 is your best bet. Wide and a zoom put together. Of course in the end i'd only have these. I tried almost every lens in the new line up for my d300, and figured i'd only prefer good glass.
50mm 1.4
17-55 2.8
70-200 vr 2.8
Manfrotto 190XProb head 486RC2
( nikon) I went through too many lenses. So if you want to save yourself from a head of selling and buy save up for what you really want.

Its not a bad lens to begin with it but if you hit L lens you won't stop wanting them.

Let me know if you really want a 28-135 my friend who upgraded to L lense has an IS version i'm not sure if their only IS for sale.


--------------------
- history of cameras
Pentax optio s4
sony t33
canon rebel xti - stolen
d80
18-135
50mm 1.8
bought 55-200 vr
Sold the 18-135
sold 55-200 vr
bought 18-200 vr
sold 50mm 1.8
sold d80
bought d300
bought 50mm 1.4
bought 70-200 vr 2.8
selling 18-200 vr right now
for 17-55 2.8

jupitersolo

Forget the 50D, you're not going to get any better pictures with it than you would with your XT on the trip, they're pretty much the same camera. What I would look at is getting a better lens, a faster lens. For your trip I would look at getting a 24-105mm lens, forget the superzooms, they give you range at the price of IQ.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

Why not the 40d? its cheaper and the 50d isn't much of a upgrade for the price its at.

I had the 18-200 and i agree the IQ wasn't all that great, but i didn't care untill i started shooting more for my college paper I got the 70-200vr and never looked back at the 18-200, well i did and bough the 17-55 2.8 5 months later.

Cmanuel

Don't worry that much about upgrading the body now. Quite honestly you would probably get the 50D and think to yourself "why on earth did i spend so much money on this?" Yes the 50D is a much nicer camera but you will get more for your hard earned money by investing in lenses. Not to mention if something were to come up and you needed to sell your gear, you will get a lot more back for lenses. (Trust me, I just sold $4,000 in gear and got about 85-90% back on my well kept lenses. Only about 60% back on my bodies).

Keep your current body and use the money to purchase lense and/or gear. I'm not a canon guy so I can't make any recomendations, but www.fredmiranda.com is a great place for lens and gear reviews (canon and nikon specific)

If you absolutely MUST upgrade, I wouldn't spend a lot. At most I would probably try to find a 40D used with 15k or less shutter actuations.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

Only reason why i upgrade was the d80 high iso noise was killing me.

Then i got stuck on getting good glass. So best things about about better body is
larger/ better screen (note the 40d screen isn't that great but 50d did get that upgrade)

6 fps im not sure you would ever use unless you shoot sports?

low noise for high iso, i needed it for where i live no natural night inside campus.

jupitersolo

He's a Canon guy, better to use http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ , it's a more friendly forum than FM. But he can get just about the same kind of help here w/o all of the BS.

I'll agree with you that it is glass not bodies, I just sold over 15k worth of equipment.

moeronn

+1 on getting glass rather than a new body. Which lens came with the kit?

FWIW, look into a gently used 17-55 2.8 IS. It should be around $850. That will cover at least 80% of the shooting you'll be doing.

cmschmie

I was thinking this (although Jup's idea of 24-105 was nice). Especially since will be part of my kit in the future anyway.
I may go 17-40, ideal if the bug bites me big time and I decide to go FF.

My only issue with buying used is that if there are any minor defects, I'm not sure I would be able to tell.

cmschmie

It seems my best bet would be to get glass (I completely agree) and maybe just upgrading to this new Rebel when it comes out. Saving quite a bit of money. Enough to get more glass

moeronn

FWIW, I had the 17-40 and sold it to fund the 17-55 purchase. The extra stop, plus IS, plus 15mm more focal length were well worth it. As mentioned previously, you can sell these for little loss. If buying used, you can pretty much sell them for what you paid (minus PP and shipping).

Most of the sellers on POTN are pretty honest about condition of lenses. Even minor dust or scratches won't affect IQ much, if at all, but everyone wants a pristine lens .

cmschmie

Thanks for the info. I'll have to check out POTN

jupitersolo

I wouldn't worry about upgrading until you know the limitations of your current body. If you end up shooting in low light, that would be a reason or if you shoot action, then you would want more fps. But wait until you now that you need to step up, don't keep planning on it. The XT can give you some great images for what it can do.

Cmanuel

Basically sums it up right there.

cmschmie

Thanks for the help guys!
I really do appreciate it.

stogie1020

Really? No one said it?



DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!

TS_eXpeed

stogie1020

Get the lens, not the body IMO.

Denzil

iTrader: (1)

Some great information in this thread... thanks for the read.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

Yea i think sticking to an xt is fine unless you really want to dish out on the latest gear, remember the new rebel isn't reviewed yet so i'm sure you dont want to get stuck with anything unknown about it like bugs issues or limitations.

cmschmie

Yeah, I thought about this a little more.
Why "upgrade" to something that is all but the exact same thing I have now but with more megapixels?
I will eventually upgrade to a XXD, but will see what I can do about lenses now.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

If you see my long list of lens i'm so pissed that i haven't thought about it earlier.

Really happy with my only 3 lenses right now.

waTSX

Get glass. Your XT is fine for a trip. As for the lenses you listed, the 18-200 will be a better range for a crop camera like yours. The 28-135 was originally made for 35mm bodies.

AndrewA

iTrader: (3)

You probably have the Non-IS 18-55. I'd sell that for $45-50 on FM.com or POTN.com and get either the 18-55 IS (much better kit lens for around $100 used) or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for just under $400 (new, hard to find used on FM or POTN). Neither is in the same ballpark IQ/Price compared to the Canon 17-55.

The Canon 55-250 IS is nice for longer reach, but I opted for convenience and got the 18-200 IS on sale for $399 as a general purpose walkaround (just avoid shooting at 18mm unless you're ok with the barrel distortion). I think the consensus is that the 18-270 VC Tamron is a slightly better megazoom. For landscapes, you also might consider the Canon 10-22.

On a crop, you may want a more "normal" fast prime such as the Canon 28mm F/1.8 or Sigma 30mm F/1.4. I used to have a Canon 35mm F/2 and found that to be too long. I can only imagine what that nifty fifty is like. Good for portraits and not much else?

cmschmie

^Where did you get the 18-200 for $400?

AndrewA

iTrader: (3)

j&r had a limited time sale i found through slickdeals. i jumped on that like a _____ on _______ (insert your own simile here)

cmschmie

Anyone ever heard of Sonic Camera? Almost suspiciously cheap.
Have the EF-S 18-200 for $440
Have the EF 24-105 for $700 Link

EDIT:
Sorry the I can't get the link to work, but it's there

cmschmie

^i.e.
Canon 50D with 24-105 AND 100-400 for ~$1900...WTF?!

50D, Grip, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS, 580EXII for ~$2300.....double WTF?!

cmschmie

It's a scam
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Sonic_Cameras

moeronn

^^ Check this before ordering.
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Sonic_Cameras

I have never seen a lower score.

AndrewA

iTrader: (3)

BTDT... run, don't walk

I asked the same question awhile ago