Calling all DSLR Users

I'm in the market for a DSLR, and I've got my eye set on the 40D. I've been offered a used unit and some real quality L Glass. Unfortunately as it is with L glass, its high end stuff with a high end price however these prices look very tempting.

Can anyone offer advice on lenses? I.e whether a 24-105L lens will be good for walkaround stuff? Theres a 10-22mm also up for grabs which would be great for landscapes, a 50mm F1.8 prime and a 100-400mm L which are soooo tempting but sooo expensive.

Its my first DSLR (I've had experience with a bridge cam and books) but I have a basic grasp of photography and want to further it with quality kit.

anyone?

PM Rictus mate, I think he uses Canon stuff mate and when I PM'd him when I was in the market, he was very helpful.

[Bri w]

Originally Posted by robchester

I'm in the market for a DSLR, and I've got my eye set on the 40D. I've been offered a used unit and some real quality L Glass. Unfortunately as it is with L glass, its high end stuff with a high end price however these prices look very tempting.

Can anyone offer advice on lenses? I.e whether a 24-105L lens will be good for walkaround stuff? Theres a 10-22mm also up for grabs which would be great for landscapes, a 50mm F1.8 prime and a 100-400mm L which are soooo tempting but sooo expensive.

Its my first DSLR (I've had experience with a bridge cam and books) but I have a basic grasp of photography and want to further it with quality kit.

Anything covering about 85mm is good for portrait but 24-105 might be a bit iffy lower end. 10-22mm is decent, 50mm you'll hardly ever use with all the others available. 100-400mm should produce some good stuff but like the 24-105 you might have depth of field issues and maybe a little distortion at either end.

If they're for general decent amateur stuff, and the price is right, i'd say go for them.

[ophic]

never had a DSLR, but I've lots of experience with 35mm film SLRs.

The lenses are usually rated in 35mm equivalent focal lengths, i think, so 50mm is considered normal. 24-105 is great for a general purpose zoom - from very wide to a useful telephoto.

Personally wouldn't bother with the 10-22 unless you're going to be doing lots of estate agent work, ie making rooms look bigger. 100-400 is some extreme telephoto there and you'd need a tripod or a very sunny day to take advantage of its longer reaches. Good for sports, birdwatching, safaris etc.

After many years I got sick of all the expensive and heavy kit, and it all got nicked anyway. I now use a 12MP digital compact cos its so much easier.

HTH

Well I just want to be able to further my photos and I dont feel you can achieve that with a compact.

The 40d is a crop body therefore has a 1.6x multiplier to the focal length making the 24 a bit long at around 32mm on the shorter end. The 100-400 is superb glass but at £750 out of my price range. The 10-22mm would be good for landscapes and taking interior shots of buildings but I think I need to get something like a 17-70mm F2.8 lens or something pretty fast which will be an ideal walkabout. I'll hold off on the tele lens as I wont be shooting anything fast until next season anyway.

50mm F1.8 prime lens will be a fantastic little lens. So so sharp and fast, my girlfriend uses hers most of the time.
I have an 18-135mm lens which is fine for walkabout, just a little bit slow, but I'm not willing to spend the money to get something better.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by robchester

Well I just want to be able to further my photos and I dont feel you can achieve that with a compact.

I havent looked back since I got my Nikon, I really enjoy taking pics now and having the controlability and the time to experiment with settings etc etc I really enjoy that side of it.

I'm no expert on lenses, If you can get it all for a good price, I'd be inclined to buy it and then if you dont get on with it you can always sell it on again. There seems to be quite a healthy 2nd market for this stuff.

Fizz to be honest, I looked initially at the opportunity to make money on the kit. Provided it was as described, it was cheaper than buying from some of the other photography forums. The whole kit however was over £2k. I reckon it would sell for about another £400-500 if sold on a dedicated photography forum. I dont however fancy the gamble for the money. I think I'll look to starting small and seeing how things get on. I've been using a Panasonic Bridge cam for the last 2 years and I think i've outgrown it. I use it on manual most of the time but with ISO settings of 100-400 only available on the highest quality setting, and the focal length being a little too long for a nice wide landscape shot, I would like to take it upto the next level. I've done a fair amount of research and swotting up about equipment and how to get the most out of it, but I think you can only go so far with a point & shoot.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by robchester

Well I just want to be able to further my photos and I dont feel you can achieve that with a compact.

You're right, of course. With jobs and kids etc, I no longer have the leisure time to devote to it - hence all i take now is holiday snaps.

I do love digital cameras tho - they used to compare them to film and say it was more expensive per print - but for those of us who live in front of a computer, who needs prints?