Convince my friend to buy decent glass?

lolage

lolage

Messages
911
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Granted my friend will be a beginner, hes taking photography as part of his uni course and wants to get into it.

Hes looking at buying a Canon 600D but he wants to buy it with the kit lens for about £410. I am however trying to persuade him to buy the 600D body only (£350) and buy the Tamron 17-50 2.8 for just over £200.

So basically for just over £100 hes getting a decent body with some nice glass to get him started? Instead of spending £60 on the kit lens?

Any opinions? :shrug:
 
its all how much money he has to spend, i personally think id just get the body and do as you say.
 
I think it is a bit daunting for the beginner to the dslr world that the camera isn't the single consideration and that lenses are equally if not more important. Also the shock horror that they can cost as much if not more as the cameras.

I'd tell him...

If you invest in a lens (unlike other consumer goods) it should maintain value.

Staying with the kit lens you may be oblivious for a short time while getting to grips with the camera but its only a matter of time you'll be craving better quality images (esp. doing a photo course).

The Tamron 17-50 is a top lens and strikes in a lot of reviews the best balance between price vs. performance.

That the wider constant aperture will enhance your technique, creativity and allow low light shooting.

I'm sure there's more points but covered a few...

But then of course there's the other side of the arguement for kit lenses but ill leave that one for now.
 
Last edited:
I don't think starting off with a kit lens is necessarily a bad thing as you can always sell it on and upgrade at a later date should you wish.

I started off with a very basic 18-70 kit lens and it was not too bad and did not even have VR which seems to come as standard these days even on basic kit zooms.
 
I think the tamron 17-50mm would be an excellent beginners lens.

I think it is best to let people explore the world of lenses them selves as they will start thinking "I wish I could go longer, wider or faster" depending on what subject catch there eye.

Now the problem is with his camera choice. Canon really? :)
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I started off with a very basic 18-70 kit lens and it was not too bad and did not even have VR which seems to come as standard these days even on basic kit zooms.
Click to expand...

If that was the AF 18-70 kit lens, it was very possibly the best kit lens ever made, certainly of its time. If I was still a Dx user, I would be happy to have it now.
 
I don't know about the Canon, but on the Nikon 18-55, the front element rotates on focus. This makes using filters a pain. I'm no pro (nor even a student) but that would bug the hell out of me!
 
lolage said:
Granted my friend will be a beginner, hes taking photography as part of his uni course and wants to get into it.

Hes looking at buying a Canon 600D but he wants to buy it with the kit lens for about £410. I am however trying to persuade him to buy the 600D body only (£350) and buy the Tamron 17-50 2.8 for just over £200.

So basically for just over £100 hes getting a decent body with some nice glass to get him started? Instead of spending £60 on the kit lens?

Any opinions? :shrug:
Click to expand...

410 vs 550 = £140. thats not exactly small change. if he can afford 550 he's be better off buying a flash rather than the tamron lens.
 
POAH said:
410 vs 550 = £140. thats not exactly small change. if he can afford 550 he's be better off buying a flash rather than the tamron lens.
Click to expand...

For once i agree with ross - for a photography student starting out the kit lens is perfectly adequate (Its also stabilised which might be useful), and the extra cash would be better spent elsewhere either on a flashgun or on a 50mm f1.8 (or both with some canny second hand buying)

Come to that he could get a perfectly adequate 40D with a kit lens for about 300 quid second hand and spend the rest of the budget on lenses, flash, or indeed wine, women and song

At the end of the day its his choice and he should buy whatever he wants rather than what you think he needs
 
Last edited:
I spoke to a wedding tog at a friends wedding just after I bought my 1st DLSR and he said the following:

If it came with the kit it's (word that rhymes with kit)

Never a truer word spoken. Yes you can get some good images with a kit lens... in fact you can get some very good images, but at the end of the day it's not a long term solution and if people get even half decent they'll out grow it and have to upgrade.

If your friend can get the Tamron for £100 extra then it's a no brainer to me. I've shot weddings to a very good standard on the Tamron including in some very dark rooms... I've upgraded to the Canon version now and it's a far better lens, but the Tamron is a quality lens and would last him for years.

The kit one will probably last a few months and then start to become a source of frustration and many hours spent on eBay looking longingly at the Tamron
 
Last edited:
I'd say your better off having a solid foundation in the normal range on which to build.

A lot of people hold on to their kit lens as you hardly get anything on selling. If the tamron is only 100 quid extra its no brainer.
 
sharris86 said:
I'd say your better off having a solid foundation in the normal range on which to build.

A lot of people hold on to their kit lens as you hardly get anything on selling. If the tamron is only 100 quid extra its no brainer.
Click to expand...

Only if he's got an extra 100 (actually 140) quid - if he hasnt got the money available buying what he can afford is also a no brainer.

It also depends on what sort of photography he's going to do during the course - if its weddings or anything else that involves a lot of low light work then he'd be better off with the 17-50 f2.8 - if not then it might not matter , and he might be better off getting the kit lens and putting the extra 140 towards other kit (e.g if hes going to do a lot of landscapes he might want to save up for a UWA, if he's going to do a lot of nature or sport he might want a long lens and so on)
 
Fair point but within the normal range you can explore a lot of different types of photography than investing in the extremes of uwa and telephoto. Landscapes are not excludively shot with a uwa. Not much is off limits apart from the telephoto end and you can pick up a cheap zoom for not much.

Speaking from experience i did everything but upgrade my kit at first. I bought uwa, telephoto, 35mm prime. But what i really should have done was replace the kit lens.
 
sharris86 said:
Landscapes are not excludively shot with a uwa.
.
Click to expand...

you are right they arent - my point however was that if landscapes are his thing he'd have more scope with a kit lens and a 10-20 than with just a 17-50

ditto if he wants to cover sport or nature he's have more options with a kit lens and a 55-250 than he would with just 17-50

I'm not knocking the 17-50 , its a great lens and I use mine a lot (especially for weddings) all i'm saying is that its no absolutely essential for a beginner and he might be better off with a wider range of focal length and thus options for the same money - depending on where his photographic interests lie
 
The kit lens will be fine. If he want to change to the Tamron later he can just buy one of those at that stage. As others have said, the Tamron may not be what he actually ends up wanting so the £200 would have been spent in the wrong place.

He probably doesn't even know what he wants at this stage but will do in a few months time. If it turns out to be a Tamron 17-50 then you can just sigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top