Help me make my decision. Canon 50D kit

[dsd17]

I'm looking at upgrading from my Canon XTi and am interested in getting the 50D. I'll be selling my XTi and the two lenses I currently have. There are two auctions on ebay for these with varying lens packages. One of them has the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS as the only lens included and other junk for $1498.

The other one has 3 lenses:

other auction for $1327

Are the 2 lenses (other than the 50mm) decent or are they more of a kit lens? Would I be happy with only having the 18-200mm? Or should I have multiple lenses for that large of a range?

 

[ElFenix]

item numbers:
160332340703
130303778559


i'd get neither. the 18-55 is a pretty decent little optic, but the 75-300 is kinda junky. i'd much rather have the 55-250. and i'd much rather have the 18-55 and 55-250 than the 18-200.

 

[996GT2]

The 18-200 is a pretty mediocre lens. You can save by getting the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS.

50D on eBay: around $1000
18-55mm IS: around $100 on eBay
55-250 IS: around $250 on eBay

Total: $1350

Of course, if you are getting a 50D kit, I would recommend some higher end lenses than the 18-55 and 55-250. At the very least, look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of the 18-55 IS.

The other thing to consider is, do you really need to upgrade your XTi body? What is it lacking that you really need? The 50D adds 5 megapixels, faster continuous shooting, and better AF, and is better ergonomically, but in terms of image quality your shots won't suddenly get better just because you're shooting on a 50D. It might be worthwhile to consider upgrading your XTi's kit lens to a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and getting a telephoto or some primes to go with that.

 

[dsd17]

The XTi was somewhat of an impulse buy and even though its a DSLR, it feels cheap to me after holding my friends 20D. I was going to go for the 40D, but I figured since the 50D is the newest model I might as well get it instead. I've read several comparisons and ultimately decided on the 50D. I know that the lenses are where the image quality comes from, but I still want the camera body to look and feel good in my hands (and in my mind).

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: dsd17
The XTi was somewhat of an impulse buy and even though its a DSLR, it feels cheap to me after holding my friends 20D. I was going to go for the 40D, but I figured since the 50D is the newest model I might as well get it instead. I've read several comparisons and ultimately decided on the 50D. I know that the lenses are where the image quality comes from, but I still want the camera body to look and feel good in my hands (and in my mind).

A 50D is by no means a bad choice then if you are looking for better ergonomics and a more "quality" feel. I would advise you to get some higher-end glass to go with your 50D, though. The 18-55 and 55-250 are designed as companions for the Rebel bodies. They are good lenses, but AF is on the slow side, apertures are slow (and variable), and build quality is quite low-key.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a good all-around lens for the 50D. It's good for landscapes, portraits, etc. Having had both the 18-55 IS and Tamron 17-50 on my 40D, I definitely think the latter is worth the $350. If your style of shooting is like mine, this is the lens that will be on your camera 90% of the time.

As far as telephoto lenses go, the 55-250 IS is a good entry-level option if you don't need super-fast AF or if you rarely shoot sports. The next step up in the telephoto game would be the professional grade 70-200 f/4L non-IS, which is about $500 used or $600 new. Spending the extra $$ on the latter buys you a pro-grade build, superb sharpness at any aperture, and very fast USM focusing.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: dsd17
The XTi was somewhat of an impulse buy and even though its a DSLR, it feels cheap to me after holding my friends 20D. I was going to go for the 40D, but I figured since the 50D is the newest model I might as well get it instead. I've read several comparisons and ultimately decided on the 50D. I know that the lenses are where the image quality comes from, but I still want the camera body to look and feel good in my hands (and in my mind).

A 50D is by no means a bad choice then if you are looking for better ergonomics and a more "quality" feel. I would advise you to get some higher-end glass to go with your 50D, though. The 18-55 and 55-250 are designed as companions for the Rebel bodies. They are good lenses, but AF is on the slow side, apertures are slow (and variable), and build quality is quite low-key.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a good all-around lens for the 50D. It's good for landscapes, portraits, etc. Having had both the 18-55 IS and Tamron 17-50 on my 40D, I definitely think the latter is worth the $350. If your style of shooting is like mine, this is the lens that will be on your camera 90% of the time.

As far as telephoto lenses go, the 55-250 IS is a good entry-level option if you don't need super-fast AF or if you rarely shoot sports. The next step up in the telephoto game would be the professional grade 70-200 f/4L non-IS, which is about $500 used or $600 new. Spending the extra $$ on the latter buys you a pro-grade build, superb sharpness at any aperture, and very fast USM focusing.

Yeah, the 50d is a nice camera, screen is great. But really what is wrong with the xti? The XTI can take some great pictures. If you really have the cash though nothing wrong with the 50d, it'd be a nice upgrade in terms of frames per second, the screen, and high iso performance. For pictures in good light printed at up to 8x12 there won't be an image quality difference though.

And the 70-200 f/4l non-IS is nice, but losing the IS is huge...if you are going to get it go for the IS version unless you NEED the fast focus and full frame coverage. And I'm sorry but unless you absolutely need the faster focusing for sports and the like, no one will be able to tell the difference between prints made made with the 55-250 and the 70-200. The 55-250 lacks a few thins, but image quality is not one of them. You can easily get professional shots from this lens, the trade-offs being they won't be of fast moving subjects in low light.

The 18-200 is fine, it has "good enough" image quality, but it's more expensive and isn't quite as good as having the 18-55 (or the tamron as 996 suggested) and the 55-250. It's really ONLY for people who absolutely must have a large zoom range on one lens. Other than that, price wise, it doesn't make sense.

Anyway, not to dissuade you from the 50d, it's a great camera but..for the price, you can get a lot of glass....

You could get canon's amazing 17-55m f2.8 IS and the 55-250mm IS AND a 430ex II to go with your XTI.

Or a 70-200mm f4l IS + the tamron 996 suggested.

I'd think hard about whether you need the features you would gain from the 50d. If you do, buy it. If not the glass you can grab with that cash will make an absolutely massive difference (and get a good flash if you don't have one!)

 

[jpeyton]

I'm not sure the 50D is the model you want to get, especially since you really don't have any quality glass.

 

[dsd17]

I'm in the process of selling a ton of old electronics and other household items. Depending on how much I make from these items will depend on what I get. I would like to get an upgraded body because I think the 40D or 50D will last me longer than the XTi will. I also plan on getting 2-3 nice lenses with this purchase. All in all I expect to spend ~$2000 total.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: dsd17
I'm in the process of selling a ton of old electronics and other household items. Depending on how much I make from these items will depend on what I get. I would like to get an upgraded body because I think the 40D or 50D will last me longer than the XTi will. I also plan on getting 2-3 nice lenses with this purchase. All in all I expect to spend ~$2000 total.

$2000 total...if you really have to have a 40D or 50D:

If buying completely new:

50D Body ($1200)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: $350
EF 55-250mm I: $250

OR:

40D Body ($800)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: $350
EF 70-200mm f/4L or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM (~$600)

If you're ok with buying used from a photography forum like POTN, then you can get:

40D Body ($700) or 50D Body ($950)
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ($800)
EF 70-200mm f/4L or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM ($500)

Whatever you decide to get, remember that camera bodies become obsoleted every 3-4 years, while lenses can last 10-20 years or more easily. I've got a 70-210mm Ultrasonic from the early 1990s and it's much better than Canon's modern 70-300mm lenses.

 

[randomlinh]

Ok, yes the XTi feels cheap, but what exactly about it do you feel you're lacking? I would say put that money toward those good lenses and a grip, and stick the rest of the 50D money into your pocket for savings.

 

[dsd17]

This is a bit more than i wanted to spend, but what do you guys think of this:

Canon 50D
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Hoods for all 3 lenses

$2600 shipped

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: dsd17
This is a bit more than i wanted to spend, but what do you guys think of this:

Canon 50D
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Hoods for all 3 lenses

$2600 shipped

This is actually a pretty good deal if you can get all 3 for $2600. Is this for new or used? If new, this is an excellent deal. Even used it's a pretty good deal.

 

[dsd17]

they are all very slightly used. All have been purchased within the last 6 months. The guy upgraded to a 5D Mark II.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: dsd17
they are all very slightly used. All have been purchased within the last 6 months. The guy upgraded to a 5D Mark II.

Still not a bad deal.

Used 50D is worth $950
Used 17-55 f/2.8 is worth $850
Used 10-22 is worth $575
Used 18-200 is worth $500

Make sure the 17-55 isn't too dusty and that the IS works. Though this lens has extraordinary image quality, its IS motor is known to sometimes die after a year. It's also got a reputation as a dust-pump.

 

[idiotekniQues]

i know that its all about the glass but from holding a bunch of bodies that are along the lines of the rebel or nikon 40d series, the interface just sucks with the push buttons on the back and the camera just feels shoddy in hand. it overall does not give nearly the response that i want in a body.

at some point, the ergonomics will help you just shoot smoother. the glass lasts forever, but at least with a body that has the design and interface that is a fuller sized slr vs those toy-like entry level jobs.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
i know that its all about the glass but from holding a bunch of bodies that are along the lines of the rebel or nikon 40d series, the interface just sucks with the push buttons on the back and the camera just feels shoddy in hand. it overall does not give nearly the response that i want in a body.

at some point, the ergonomics will help you just shoot smoother. the glass lasts forever, but at least with a body that has the design and interface that is a fuller sized slr vs those toy-like entry level jobs.

After going from an XT to a 30D to a Nikon D300, I'd have to say that ergonomics are very important if you shoot a lot, if you shoot professionally, or if you shoot under pressure. I don't think I could handle using an XT shooting real estate under a time constraint. The D300 is not bad, but I REALLY wish it had a big scroll wheel like the 30/40/50D does. That little scroll wheel does wonders and it absolutely hurts when you lose it with another body.

 

[idiotekniQues]

the 70-300IS is a huge upgrade from the 75-300. reviews say it closes in on L glass quality - for shot quality, not for build quality of course.

the 75-300 was mediocre.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the 70-300IS is a huge upgrade from the 75-300. reviews say it closes in on L glass quality - for shot quality, not for build quality of course.

the 75-300 was mediocre.

The 70-300 IS is a pretty mediocre lens for the price. It costs twice as much as a 55-250, but still has a rotating/extending front element, slow aperture, and slow micro-motor (ultrasonic, but not the fast ring-type with manual override). The image quality is also almost exactly the same.

The 75-300 is even worse...it's one of Canon's worst lenses in terms of image quality.

For the same $550 a 70-200 f/4L or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM are much better choices.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the 70-300IS is a huge upgrade from the 75-300. reviews say it closes in on L glass quality - for shot quality, not for build quality of course.

the 75-300 was mediocre.

The 70-300 IS is a pretty mediocre lens for the price. It costs twice as much as a 55-250, but still has a rotating/extending front element, slow aperture, and slow micro-motor (ultrasonic, but not the fast ring-type with manual override). The image quality is also almost exactly the same.

The 75-300 is even worse...it's one of Canon's worst lenses in terms of image quality.

For the same $550 a 70-200 f/4L or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM are much better choices.

yeah the 70-300IS is a full frame lens which is the reason it costs more. for the OP since he is going APS-C that wont help him out, though i suspect the image quality should be better on the 70-300 because the APS-C is just using the sweet spot of a full-frame lens.

but the 70-300IS has near L quality for shot quality from what i read, so it is a fine choice for image quality. a 70-200 f4L or 70-200 2.8 sigma may not be the best choices for everybody. build quality they will hands down beat the 70-300 - but 4-stop IS is a huge plus to go with the extra 100mm of reach and the smaller size to be more portable. for some people at least.

id rather have the 70-300IS vs the 70-200 f4L. its a lot closer for me with the constant 2.8 sigma 70-200 though. but often enough with the 70-300, im shooting at 300, which means i need that reach. ive shot 1/25th of a second almost fully extended at 300mm with IS on and gotten sharp shots. IS is great. and the bokeh on the 70-300 is very nice.