DSLR + lens for the beginning

[bersjia]

Hi guys, 

I like photography and feel I am ready for my first DSLR (I used only Point-an-shoot cameras before). Read a lot of reviews and discussions but things are still not clear for me which camera and lens to get. My budget is around $1500. I am planning to take portraits (and some weddings perhaps) and some landscape pics (just for pleasure from time to time). Also if possible I'd like to grow with my camera so it should not necessary be a camera for noob, I am willing to learn.

So, I found 2 lenses - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens (Both are prime, must provide a nice pic in a bad light, fast and sharp). The price for Sigma is 2 times higher then Canon. Does the difference really cost these money? Since there is a rule "better buy more expensive lens then camera" I don't mind to spend more on Sigma, but should I? Also is it better to get 50mm or 35mm considering I am going to use with crop sensor camera?

I can't afford full-frame camera right now, so depends on which lens I'm going to get there is some options with camera: Canon 70D, 7d or T3i.

I would be happy to hear some advice and thank you in advance.

[ebiggs1]

"My budget is around $1500."

This throws the EOS 7D and either the Sigma 50mm or 35mm "Art" out of the equation.  Although the 7D is on sale for a great price right now.  If I were to prichase this outfit I woud prefer the 35mm f1.4 Art lens over the 50mm.  It is more "normal" on a 7D.

I have the SIgma 35mm f1.4, and the 50mm f1.4 plus the EF 50mm f1.2.  Given the choice of just one, it would be the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 without hesitation.  But I will say the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is scary sharp.  It may be the sharpest lens ever made.  It is that good.  The Siggy 50mm is not far behind.

But a lens, any lens, is a sum of it's specs and not just a single spec.  This is where the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L kicks butt.  It is simply the best 50mm I have ever had.

But getting back to your original question, I would go for a T5i and the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art.  It exceeds your budget but by just a little bit.  A Rebel T3i will stay below just a bit.  Both the Siggy 35mm and 50mm are big heavy lenses, BTW.

[ebiggs1]

Oh, just another point, if you are considering lenses in this categpry, forget getting the "Kit" lens at all.  Any of these are so way much better in every spec there is no comparison.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Oh, just another point, if you are considering lenses in this categpry, forget getting the "Kit" lens at all.  Any of these are so way much better in every spec there is no comparison.

---

At B&H as we speak (er ... type), a T5i body costs $49 less than its cheapest kit. At that price differential you'd be crazy not to take the kit. It gives you a new, usable spare lens that you can take to the beach or other gritty environment while your good lens stays in the bag. It's cheaper than buying a decent filter for the good lens.

[ebiggs1]

Bob in Boston,

MPO, as always, I would not spend even $49 bucks on the kit lens.  Especially after owning and using the EF 24-105mm f4 L.

But, hey, that is just me.

[cale_kat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob in Boston,

MPO, as always, I would not spend even $49 bucks on the kit lens.  Especially after owning and using the EF 24-105mm f4 L.

But, hey, that is just me.

---

Value perceptions change when one acquires a particularly "choice" group of lenses. By standards even as recently as 10 years ago, today's kit lenses are leaps and bounds ahead of the earlier offerings. Areas such as auto-focus performance and modern sensor performance combine to make good value from a $50 lens especially if you want something to take into adverse conditions.

Just my $.02.

[lniles]

If your budget is $1500, why not get a 6D?  It's full-frame.  I used to only have a 7D and now also have a 6D. It's awesome, and now I use it most of the time even though I still have the 7D!!!!

[hsbn]

His budget I think is for Camera + Lens (at least one). Yes, he can buy 6D full frame for $1500 now, but that is without any lens.

[cale_kat]

---

@bersjia wrote:

Hi guys, 

I like photography and feel I am ready for my first DSLR (I used only Point-an-shoot cameras before). Read a lot of reviews and discussions but things are still not clear for me which camera and lens to get. My budget is around $1500. I am planning to take portraits (and some weddings perhaps) and some landscape pics (just for pleasure from time to time). Also if possible I'd like to grow with my camera so it should not necessary be a camera for noob, I am willing to learn.

So, I found 2 lenses - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens (Both are prime, must provide a nice pic in a bad light, fast and sharp). The price for Sigma is 2 times higher then Canon. Does the difference really cost these money? Since there is a rule "better buy more expensive lens then camera" I don't mind to spend more on Sigma, but should I? Also is it better to get 50mm or 35mm considering I am going to use with crop sensor camera?

I can't afford full-frame camera right now, so depends on which lens I'm going to get there is some options with camera: Canon 70D, 7d or T3i.

I would be happy to hear some advice and thank you in advance.

---

You would get better value by investing the $1,500 in photography course work. I did this when my son was born, I wanted to document his early years, and I found the entire experience extremely rewarding. What sort of camera do you presently own?

[bersjia]

I really appreciate your responses and help. $1500 is my budget for a camera and a lens together. Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens is out of my budget so now I am thinking more and more about Sigma 35mm f/1.4 - it fits my needs and my money.

Canon EOS T5i seems a nice cam but it says I can only use it with EF-S types of lenses. Any ideas what else can I get for $600-700 (might be smth used)?