what camera
- Started
- Last post
- 12 Responses
- dcs787
Im looking to by a new camera and new mid range lens..(I currently have a 350D and a telephoto 70-300mm)
Im looking to upgrade to a 50D and looking to get the canon 17-85 zoom lens)
1) Do you think i should bite the bullet and go pro on the body? Is it worth the money?
2) has anyone got the 17-85? is it good? Or what would you recommend as an alternative at around the same price?
- recpos0
Second the 40D option, get a great deal - invest the rest in lenses. I just got a 17-40mm f4L lens and it is simply great. It's the glass that makes the difference.
- Tungsten0
I'd go for a 40d. They're so cheap right now and have less noise at high iso than the 50d. 15mpx is way too much for an APS-C sized sensor. As recpos said, use that extra money for a nice lens. 5d MKII is an amazing camera but all that extra money could be used to take you and your 40d on a pretty amazing trip somewhere.
- mia_free0
haha....
- mia_free0
sorry, wrong thread
- forcetwelve0
40D + 17-85 + 50mm 1.8ƒ
- 23kon0
always remember:
an expensive camera does not maketh the good photographer.
it will just make friends mock you for buying something so expensive for you to taketh pish shots with.
- ian0
Hey 23, did you sort out the camera for your brothers girlfriend?
- goygoygoy0
agreed you'll get more out of a good prime or a pro zoom than from a pro body.
- db_gd0
I didn't get on with the 17-85. Think on smaller MP camera's it would be OK but if you're going for a higher MP count then you really need good glass to benefit. 17-40 F4L's very nice as said before.
- 23kon0
ian
i sent on the link that someone had left on the post to the dpreviews of all 2008 camera reviews under $150.
he said he looked at that and made his choice. :)