1 camera, 1 lens, £1000 - What would you get?

Fozzybear

Fozzybear

Suspended / Banned
Messages
312
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
Yes
Planning on getting back into my photography in the New Year and will be buying my kit from scratch. So, no real preference in brand. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax etc.

I'll primarily be using my camera for sport, mainly horse racing. This would consist of running and walking horses. I may also do portraits at some stage as well. I can get pretty close to the horses whilst they're racing so 85mm (136mm equivalent) should be OK.

I have considered the Nikon D5100 with a Nikon AF-S 105mm f2.8G ED-IF VR and the Canon 60D with a Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM Lens.

The sensor of the Nikon D5100 is ideal as is the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM. That pairing would of been great for £800 ish but obviously it's not possible! :crying:

So, I'm open to suggestions. It doesn't need to be a prime lens to go with the body. Because of budget, I fear a prime is my only option as the lens needs to perform well in low light.

Thanks in advance. :)

edit//
Just realised the 105mm f2.8 is £600 and not £500 as I thought. Call the budget £1100. Brand new rather than used.
 
Last edited:
You could picup a 40D/50D with a 70/200 L lens for your budget, good fast frames per second and a real sharp lens too.

others will come up with other combo's but its a start.

spike
 
Nikon D5100 with a kit lens and the Nikon 70-300 vr all in under a grand. You can add the 35 f1.8 @ £165 later.
 
Nikon D7000 and used 85mm f 1.8.
 
Can you push it a bit? K-5 with 50-135 2.8 :) If not K-r + 50-135 2.8 which if you go S/H for the lens it will come right around £800.
 
Last edited:
SpikeK6 said:
You could picup a 40D/50D with a 70/200 L lens for your budget, good fast frames per second and a real sharp lens too.

others will come up with other combo's but its a start.

spike
Click to expand...

I'd rather buy new than risk something 2nd hand. Also, the high ISO performance of the 40d and 50d might let me down.

whacko77uk said:
Nikon D5100 with a kit lens and the Nikon 70-300 vr all in under a grand. You can add the 35 f1.8 @ £165 later.
Click to expand...

I have considered the D5100, Tamron 70-300 VC USD and the 35mm f1.8G for pretty much exactly £1000. Definitely a possibility.

The23rdman said:
Nikon D7000 and used 85mm f 1.8.
Click to expand...

The D7000 has rocketed in price recently to around £900 body only so the 2nd hand 85mm f1.8 would have to be a bargain.

vrapan said:
Can you push it a bit? K-5 with 50-135 2.8 If not K-r + 50-135 2.8 which if you go S/H for the lens it will come right around £800.
Click to expand...

The K-5 and 50-135 would be around £1300 so that's a no go really. :) I'd also like a body that performs a bit better at higher ISO's than the K-R.

I'm liking the budget Nikon D5100 so far but am slightly worried about the lower burst rate and buffer. I'm considering the D90 rather than the D5100 but fear, in some ways, it's a backwards step.
 
Fozzybear said:
I'd rather buy new than risk something 2nd hand. Also, the high ISO performance of the 40d and 50d might let me down.

I have considered the D5100, Tamron 70-300 VC USD and the 35mm f1.8G for pretty much exactly £1000. Definitely a possibility.

The D7000 has rocketed in price recently to around £900 body only so the 2nd hand 85mm f1.8 would have to be a bargain.

The K-5 and 50-135 would be around £1300 so that's a no go really. :) I'd also like a body that performs a bit better at higher ISO's than the K-R.

I'm liking the budget Nikon D5100 so far but am slightly worried about the lower burst rate and buffer. I'm considering the D90 rather than the D5100 but fear, in some ways, it's a backwards step.
Click to expand...

High iso on 50d is good!

Nothing wrong with buying used, you can get some great deals on low shutter count bodies.
 
odd jim said:
High iso on 50d is good!

Nothing wrong with buying used, you can get some great deals on low shutter count bodies.
Click to expand...

I've only looked on DxOMark and it has the 40d on 703pts and the 50d on 696pts. The DPReview 50d review also says it has lower high ISO performance than the 40d. I've seen a 40d 2nd hand at £399. Seems a bit steep.

The Nikon d5100 get a high ISO rating of 1183pts! Some people say it's not important but it is to me if I want to get really fast shutter speeds whilst shooting horses running at 40mph.
 
Fozzybear said:
I'd rather buy new than risk something 2nd hand. Also, the high ISO performance of the 40d and 50d might let me down.

I have considered the D5100, Tamron 70-300 VC USD and the 35mm f1.8G for pretty much exactly £1000. Definitely a possibility.

The D7000 has rocketed in price recently to around £900 body only so the 2nd hand 85mm f1.8 would have to be a bargain.

The K-5 and 50-135 would be around £1300 so that's a no go really. :) I'd also like a body that performs a bit better at higher ISO's than the K-R.

I'm liking the budget Nikon D5100 so far but am slightly worried about the lower burst rate and buffer. I'm considering the D90 rather than the D5100 but fear, in some ways, it's a backwards step.
Click to expand...

Buy a used D7000 then. :)
 
Sony a580 (£500-ish) + "easy choice" 85/2.8 (£150-ish). I'd spend the remainder on beer, but a Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be another option.
 
S/H 50-135 is 500 so you can reduce that £1300 by a bit, also it is a lens that rivals plenty of high quality primes.

For whatever is worth the K-r almost matches the K-5 and D7k high ISO all the way to 1600 and you have to actually really look very closely to see any difference at 3200 and 6400. Nothing some decent NR PP won't smooth out.

You could also look for a Sigma 50-150 they can be had for as little as £300 s/h, they are amazing lenses and the AF speed is pretty good too. I'd pair that with a D7k if they hadn't shot to near £900 lately.
 
Ok unless i have got this totally wrong, if you are shooting horses racing they will be outside so why would you need really high ISO, its not like they race under flood lights, or do they???

Also for portrates you do not need high iso either as flashes or lights will be used, or natural light from a window.

Ok still pushing the 50D as it will do all of the above not a problem, from the answers you have given it seems like you know what you want and how to get it so not a total noob, but with your budget I feel something has to give as you will not get everything you are looking for new.

All my gear is second hand apart from 1 lens and my 50D was low shutter count so really good condition, infact like new, my L lens was mint, so Iwould not be too fast to rule out 2nd hand gear, better deal for the buck, also if you buy from a shop you will get a little warrenty

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
Ok unless i have got this totally wrong, if you are shooting horses racing they will be outside so why would you need really high ISO, its not like they race under flood lights, or do they???

Also for portrates you do not need high iso either as flashes or lights will be used, or natural light from a window.

Ok still pushing the 50D as it will do all of the above not a problem, from the answers you have given it seems like you know what you want and how to get it so not a total noob, but with your budget I feel something has to give as you will not get everything you are looking for new.

All my gear is second hand apart from 1 lens and my 50D was low shutter count so really good condition, infact like new, my L lens was mint, so Iwould not be too fast to rule out 2nd hand gear, better deal for the buck, also if you buy from a shop you will get a little warrenty

spike
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a few courses that race under floodlights. Unlikely that I'll be going there anytime soon though. :) The light does actually get pretty dim from 3pm (and earlier) on a cold Winter's afternoon sometimes at race meets.

I'm not totally ruling out 2nd hand equipment. The 50D does seem ideal apart from it's sensor not being as 'good' as the D7000/D5100 at higher ISO's. I suppose getting the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM would negate that somewhat. Not sure how I'd get on with a non IS 70-200L f4 lens. I've not got the steadiest of hands. :)

Thanks all for your suggestions. I guess there's no single answer to this. At least I have a few more options now. I won't be buying until early New Year so hopefully prices may drop a little bit by then.
 
Last edited:
Sony SLT- A65. 10 frames per second and constant re-focusing sold it to me. The translucent mirror technology is the key
 
Last edited:
Just seen some horse racing photos in a Canon 70-200L F4 IS sample thread elsewhere. They were absolutely stunning and were taken with a 60D. Looks like a good combo.

I've also seen a 2nd hand 70-200 F4 non IS for £399 with 6 month guarantee. Is the non-IS lens EXACTLY the same as the IS version in sharpness? I could possibly knock them down to nearer £350 as well.

I'm definitely leaning towards Canon at the moment unless Nikon suddenly announce a 70-200 F4! Highly unlikely.

Really impressed with example photos from the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM as well. Looks great value for just under £300.
 
Last edited:
Fozzybear said:
I've only looked on DxOMark and it has the 40d on 703pts and the 50d on 696pts. The DPReview 50d review also says it has lower high ISO performance than the 40d. I've seen a 40d 2nd hand at £399. Seems a bit steep.

The Nikon d5100 get a high ISO rating of 1183pts! Some people say it's not important but it is to me if I want to get really fast shutter speeds whilst shooting horses running at 40mph.
Click to expand...

Those tests are crap, I'm speaking from extensive tests in real world situations.

Put it this way - the 40d was poor at 800 iso. The 50d is still useable at 3200 iso!

As it happens, my testing was done specifically as I needed high iso for indoor show jumping. I can post high iso images taken at indoor show jumping events if you want definitive examples (I routinely use iso 1600 / 2500 / 3200 at these events).
 
Last edited:
postcardcv said:
Strangely I found the exact opposite when I was shooting with a 40D and a 50D - my 40D noticably outperformed my 50D from ISO800 upwards.
Click to expand...

That's strange. The 50d set up properly (ALO and HTP disabled - that's quite important!) 1600 iso was almost night and day difference against the 40d (which do t forget shares the same sensor as the 400d). I tested a 7d as well which I only found slightly better than the 50d.

As a side note, I can also vouch for the Canon 85mm f/1.8 which I've also used extensively for indoor show jumping, great lens.
 
odd jim said:
That's strange. The 50d set up properly (ALO and HTP disabled - that's quite important!) 1600 iso was almost night and day difference against the 40d (which do t forget shares the same sensor as the 400d). I tested a 7d as well which I only found slightly better than the 50d.

As a side note, I can also vouch for the Canon 85mm f/1.8 which I've also used extensively for indoor show jumping, great lens.
Click to expand...

Yeah switching those off was one of the first things I did when I got my 50D... While the 40D may have shared a sensor with the 400D it is a totally different camera, both in terms of use and IQ. The 400D is the worst Canon that I have used for IQ and high ISO performance (well it is better than the 300D, but not as good as the 350D was), the 40D is a superb camera. I've been through 4 40Ds and all have performed very well (one is still serving me well). I only had one 50D so perhaps mine was a dodgy one, but there are plenty of reviews out there than also reckon the 40D is better than the 50D at high ISOs.

Completely agree about the 85 f1.8, a superb lens... not quite sure why I sold mine! :wacky:
 
I found the reviews 50/50 with the high iso, comparison, there was a good reviews copied and posted on the recent 40/50d thread which pretty much sums it up. It stated it's better at high iso, but the main part which impresses is the fact they managed to do it with a 50% increase in resolution, which people quickly forget.

I ignore a lot of the reviews as I'm normally lucky enough to test the bodies first hand, and I disagree with a lot of them, not just in relation to bodies but lenses as well!

I agree, the 40d is a million miles better than the 400d, but again, the 400d had poor high iso and it's the same gubbins sensor wise.
 
Last edited:
If you can get close to the horses, how about a lightly used 50d/600d and a used 24-105mm?
 
85mm isn't long enough for racing, unless you are taking stock shots of the riders returning, or paddock/saddling enclosures.

You either want to be wide (24-35mm) or tight at about 200mm+.

I'd be looking for either a used 1DMkII or (my preference here) a used 7D, with a 70-200/4 similar to Marac's suggestion.

If you don't believe me about FL, then this was shot from the rails and cropped in by about 25%:

111230_P2P_22.jpg
 
Fozzybear said:
.....Not sure how I'd get on with a non IS 70-200L f4 lens. I've not got the steadiest of hands. :)...
Click to expand...

Although VR/IS is very good as an aid, the beauty of the f/4 70-200mm is its light weight and compact size..... It's very easy to handle and if you have a half-decent body size attached (50D/5D, maybe gripped) it's a very good combo. I do wish Nikon would bring out some high IQ consumer lenses like Canon does (400mm f/5.6 anyone?). Canon's f/4 70-200mm really is a special little lens, even without IS.....
 
specialman said:
Although VR/IS is very good as an aid, the beauty of the f/4 70-200mm is its light weight and compact size..... It's very easy to handle and if you have a half-decent body size attached (50D/5D, maybe gripped) it's a very good combo. I do wish Nikon would bring out some high IQ consumer lenses like Canon does (400mm f/5.6 anyone?). Canon's f/4 70-200mm really is a special little lens, even without IS.....
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the shutter speeds required for the action are going to make IS irrelevant anyway!
 
DemiLion said:
85mm isn't long enough for racing, unless you are taking stock shots of the riders returning, or paddock/saddling enclosures.

....[/IMG]
Click to expand...

I usually go to Uttoxeter where you can stand pretty much next to the final fence if you want to. I think the 85mm f1.8 would be fine for there although a zoom gives me much more options.

I'm slowly coming round to the idea of the 70-200 L f4 non IS though. The horse racing image I saw last night that was taken with the IS version was taken at 1/1600 so the IS does, as you say, become a little bit irrelevant.

I've also seen a 1DmkII for £399 with 12 months guarantee. I can only imagine it's in shabby condition for it to be at that price.

Someone mentioned a 2nd hand 24-105. I really couldn't see myself using it until around 35mm onwards. Would be a bit of a waste really.

I'm definitely a lot clearer about which lens to buy but no so much on the body. A decent example of a 50D looks my best option. Seems to have a higher FPS than the newer 60D as well.
 
OK I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest a 2nd hand 7d and a second hand ef85 1.8. My reasoning is that you seem to like sports photography and appart fom a 1d, which is clearly out of you budget, the 7d is the next best thing for sports. The 85 1.8, well it's cheep and within your budget, fast, excellent iq, would be good on the 7d for close up sports and at a push, good for portraits. Did I mention shallow depth of field as well.
 
My latest idea is to get a new Canon 60d (or 2nd hand 50d) with a Tamron 70-300 VC USD.

The brand new 60d would be £700 and the Tamron 70-300 VC USD can be bought for under £300 after the £30 rebate.

Does anyone use that combo?

The 70-200 L f4 is still under consideration as is the 1.4 TC to go with it at a later date.

:thinking:
 
60D is a great ;little camera - we have some at work and they perform very well, especially the video function. I'd still go for a constant aperture lens like a 79-200mm f/4 though, just for ease of use. Optically it'll be better too, plus it's faster in terms of aperture....
 
Those sensor scores mean absolutely nothing, the 40d is capable of pro quality photos above 800 iso.

That budget to me screams SH 40d and 70-200.
 
mcwarrior said:
Well at least most of us agree its got to be a Canon :bonk:
Click to expand...

I'm only going along with it. In reality I'd say used Nikon D7000 if we're going along the lines of smaller body form, and the older push/pull 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8.... would probably exceed £1100 but it would be the nuts...... :)
 
What about a Nikon D90? That not as good as the 40D or 50D?
 
Last edited:
intel86 said:
What about a Nikon D90? That not as good as the 40D or 50D?
Click to expand...

D90 + 85mm f/1.8 would be a gorgeous combo if the focal length is right for the OP :)

Personally I'd much rather a D90 than a D5100, it's much more of a camera.
 
So, would a D90 be a better camera to buy than a Canon 50D?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top