suggest plz

[kanu]

Hey guys,
I am planning to step into photography and am making my first purchase. Just need your comments on this.
I kinda made up my mind to buy a Canon EOS 550D (body only as kit lens hasn't recieved rave reviews). I am also buying a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime along with a Sigma APO 70-300mm (or maybe a Tamron 70-300mm not sure on that) and saving up for a Canon 100mm f/2.8 and either a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm (non VC) for my wide angle needs. Is that a sensible purchase or there's something better in my budget that I'm missing on. Please give your suggestions keeping in mind that I have only money for Canon 550D + 50mm Prime + Sigma APO 70-300mm as of now. I would greatly appreciate your help here.

 

[tirediron]

I would hold off buying a whack of glass until you've spent some time shooting. You may find that you have no need for long glass, or that you really want a macro lens, or... Remember too, that on an APS-C body, a 17mm lens (~27.5mm) isn't really all that wide. My suggestion would be to get the body and a nice mid-range zoom (such as the Sigma 17-70 {Note: I know nothing about this lens and not recommending it, rather I'm recommending a focal-length in this range}) until you become a bit more experienced and know better what you want.

 

[analog.universe]

First..congratulations!

The 550D and 50 1.8 sound great to me. I agree with tirediron about waiting on the sigma.... (with the qualification that i don't know anything about the sigma). The 50 is just an amazing value and a very useful focal length, so you can't go wrong. But I would try and borrow some lenses, rent some lenses.. to get a feel for which focal lengths you're going to be spending most of your time with. Maybe you like tele but find you don't need the zoom, and could do better with a long prime. Or maybe you want the zoom but never use 300, so you could get a 70-200 instead that's faster. There are lots of variables in this hobby, so I'd mess around before you commit to a whole bunch of stuff at once, see where your money is best spent. Also, do you have a tripod? Will you require artificial light for any of the stuff you want to shoot?

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

There is nothing wrong with the kit lenses. Unless you specialize in shooting super wide, super fast, super long or indoors without a flash, there's nothing the kit lenses cant handle for a beginner. Dealing with their limitations will help you become a better photographer. Expensive lenses wont help you shoot better photos. Later, find a niche you like and then drop some money on a lens.

 

[analog.universe]

There is nothing wrong with the kit lenses. Unless you specialize in shooting super wide, super fast, super long or indoors without a flash, there's nothing the kit lenses cant handle for a beginner. Dealing with their limitations will help you become a better photographer. Expensive lenses wont help you shoot better photos. Later, find a niche you like and then drop some money on a lens.

Gonna disagree here. Kit lenses (at least the ones that ship with rebels) are designed for folks on a tight budget who want the benefits of an slr, but don't want to spend a lot of money or acquire a lot of different pieces of gear. They are not particularly fast, or particularly sharp, and suffer from more CA and distortions than more expensive purpose built lenses. If you just want to snap some shots, those shortcomings are not a huge deal, but if you're interested in pursuing a hobby and obtaining quality results, you will eventually get frustrated with a kit lens. I really don't dig the idea of buying gear you expect to replace, especially since kit lenses don't hold their resale value nearly as much as pro lenses.

 

[Overread]

There is nothing wrong with the kit lenses. Unless you specialize in shooting super wide, super fast, super long or indoors without a flash, there's nothing the kit lenses cant handle for a beginner. Dealing with their limitations will help you become a better photographer. Expensive lenses wont help you shoot better photos. Later, find a niche you like and then drop some money on a lens.

Gonna disagree here. Kit lenses (at least the ones that ship with rebels) are designed for folks on a tight budget who want the benefits of an slr, but don't want to spend a lot of money or acquire a lot of different pieces of gear. They are not particularly fast, or particularly sharp, and suffer from more CA and distortions than more expensive purpose built lenses. If you just want to snap some shots, those shortcomings are not a huge deal, but if you're interested in pursuing a hobby and obtaining quality results, you will eventually get frustrated with a kit lens. I really don't dig the idea of buying gear you expect to replace, especially since kit lenses don't hold their resale value nearly as much as pro lenses.

Ahh but you're saying that as a person with experience in photography already - you've already got an understanding of different focal lengths - what they look like as well as the real world advantages of things such as wider maximum apertures and the rest.

When one is starting out the kit lenses offer an affordable working approach to photography that isn't going to break the bank. They will perform well if used correctly (and this learning is needed for pro or entry level lenses) and also let a person, for a modest amount (photographically speaking) do a wider range of photography. This can well let them understand their own photographic needs and desires as well as give them something they can work with and see if they want to maybe save and spend £100s or even £1000 on photography gear - or find that the few kit lenses they have do what they need them to do just fine.

I started with a regular kit lens and the sigma 70-300mm and from that I was able to try and do so much that I felt it worth spending the big budgets - but I also had experience and that greatly helped me make choices on what gear to get and what order to get them in.

In short getting kit lenses is only a waste if you've already got the experience and got your eye on the higher end gear (and can feasably afford it within a reasonable time frame) - otherwise they present a great oppertunity to the beginner. Further dispite not being "as good" as the top pro gear they can still get good photos (remember people its the photographer not the gear that is important of course)

 

[analog.universe]

Yes for sure, I totally understand the place of kit lens. I wasn't discounting them altogether. It just seemed to me that the OP was willing to invest a bit, and despite all the valid points you make, in that situation I would still recommend skipping the kit lens.

The point about experience is a tricky one, and there's no right answer there. For some people, starting with catch-all gear (i.e. a lens that does everything a little, but nothing really well) is in fact the best way to learn, despite the fact they eventually outgrow that gear. For myself, I've never found that to be the case. I think (in all creative hobbies, not just photography), that gear that performs well just lets you be more creative, which keeps you interested and keeps it fun. ymmv

 

[Overread]

Aye true enough - but sometimes its better to start with something cheap to test the waters - next to the price of the high end gear the cost of the kit gear is very tiny. Of course you can get around this if you have a local photographic club or friends to let you use and try out bits of gear and get some of the experience without the cost.