Newbie help please

A

Archer

Messages
8
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I would be grateful if you could offer some advice to a confused old lady ;)

I was just about to buy an EOS 550D body only and was looking for the best lens for me when I got cold feet and then distracted by a Nikon. The source of the cold feet being a number of comments I saw about the 550d not being so good in low light.

I want a camera principally to take pics of my son playing rugby, sometimes in daylight but often under floodlights. So, it is sport but not something like motorsport...these lads don't move really quick!

Budget: £1000 including lens although I would stretch if it made a massive difference to me.
 
Yes, I guess that would be the alternative to the 550d.

I do have a bit of a Canon bias and aside from simple bias the 550d seems to be described as such a leap forward compared to the older models. There again I don't really need movie features

Confused :s
 
I am a Nikon user so I don't know much about the Canon cameras but a Nikon D90 would be a great body for you. They are good at low light and if you put something like a Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 on it then you would probably stay within your £1,000 budget and have a decent set up for sports photography.
 
The Nikon D5000 is on par with the D90 (Nikons words not mine) and you can pick up the kits with 2 lenses one being 18-55mm and 55-200mm. I went to The Emirates Stadium last Saturday and using the D5000 and 55-200mm lens I came away with some great shots.

If you do go for the D5000 bundles try and make sure it is with the Nikkor lenses and not the tamron ones, (check out cameraworld).
 
i quite agree that the d5000 is a fantastic camera, but if your budget will stretch go for the d90 there are more AF lens available .

but dont discount the d5000

Cheers Steve
 
Agreed with the above. Definately do some research, the D90 is an older body but believed to be replaced soon so maybe prices with drop? You can definately do a lot with £1K
 
So, if I go for the D90 I could get the kit with the standard 18-105mm VR Lens for £700 or with the 18-200mm VR II for just under £1000......or the body only for £520 and a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 for about £500.

I am a beginner - should I get the standard kit option and then buy the Sigma lens once I get used to the camera? or not......or something else.......
 
Urrm the D90 body then Sigma or Tamron sounds very tempting and would be very good for the rugby matches you mention especially as you say you sometimes would be under floodlights and I get the impression of generally dull weather? The f/2.8 means you can still get fast shutter speeds in lower light. I have photographed rugby matches in rain and overcast with a standard 70-300 in the past and wished I had a faster lens.

However on the same wave length the 18-200 VR would give you the stability you may need and means you have a good range of focal lengths so may be the better option. Just my opinions :p
 
Cameraworld, Nikon D5000, 18-55mm & 55-200mm lenses £669.00, and you will still have £330 to play with. The D5000 was meant to replace the D90.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with Will. The Sigma is definitely a faster lens and will give you the reach for rugby games BUT....will be very limiting in what else you will be able to shoot. It will have a fairly narrow angle of view so wont be ideal for shooting much else. the 18-200, while bit of a compromise in terms of trying to 'do it all' has VR which will surely help in somewhat dimmer conditions although if flood-lit there may well be enough light. It will aqlso be great for other types of wider shot. However, you need to remember that VR will give a slower shutter speed in dimmer conditions and if you are shooting anything reasonably fast moving then the subject will have movement blur. How about the Sigma and a standard 50mm or even a 18-55 or 18-70 as well as? This will give you the best of both worlds.

Neil
 
The D5000 does look good but the D90 seems to be a better long term bet especially if I get a bit more hooked on this whole photography thing. On the other hand perhaps I should compromise on the body and spend more on the lens?

If I did get the 70-200mm f2.8 lens as the best bet for the rugby what would be a good choice as a more everyday lens?

Thanks for your input everyone....but more please, I am still confused:)
 
I'm backing up Neil here, consider spending that extra £100 odd to get a second lens for other photos along with a 70-200 for the sport you talk of. The D90 is probably the best long term investment. Jessops have £100 off the 18-70 that Neil mentioned - http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/27836/show.html - it's the same sorta price as the 18-55 kit lens. If you chose to go to Jessops then you can get the D90 at £628 Sigma 70-200 £699 and Nikon 18-70 £149.. I know this pushes it well up to nearly £1500 but you mentioned a D90 at £520? Was this second hand or just somewhere cheaper :P also dont be afraid to get second hand, as long as your careful eg. checking the shutter count when buying then you can save a lot of cash and get all the kit you want. Sorry if I have made things difficult or completely messed up budgets lol I know you wanted to keep it to £1000.
 
I know nothing abput Nikon Cameras, but if you don;t need to video functionality, why not look around for a good second hand canon 40D.

You should find a very clean example for around £400, 6.5fps and performs very well at higher ISO.

Use the rest to get yourself some good fast glass. I would definitely recommend f2.8 and Sigma EX glass is pretty good, however I would recommend testing the lens before purchase to make sure you get a good example. Sigma has had a bit of bad press with regards to quality control, but saying that I have had three sigma lenses with no issues at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for third party glass and second hand cameras. As long as your careful as you say, you cant really go wrong. Consider the 6.5fps of the Canon is better than the D90's 4.5fps. Most of all get your hands on both and see which you like the feel of.
 
I really don't want to go up to £1500, that is too much over budget.

I can get the kit with a 18 - 105 for £700 then could stretch to another £500 for the 70-200.

or should I just get the body with the 18-200 VR as Will suggested originally?
 
WP-UK said:
I'm backing up Neil here, consider spending that extra £100 odd to get a second lens for other photos along with a 70-200 for the sport you talk of. The D90 is probably the best long term investment. Jessops have £100 off the 18-70 that Neil mentioned - http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/27836/show.html - it's the same sorta price as the 18-55 kit lens. If you chose to go to Jessops then you can get the D90 at £628 Sigma 70-200 £699 and Nikon 18-70 £149.. I know this pushes it well up to nearly £1500 but you mentioned a D90 at £520? Was this second hand or just somewhere cheaper :P also dont be afraid to get second hand, as long as your careful eg. checking the shutter count when buying then you can save a lot of cash and get all the kit you want. Sorry if I have made things difficult or completely messed up budgets lol I know you wanted to keep it to £1000.
Click to expand...

I can certainly vouch for the 18-70mm AF-S; its a great little lens, well built and solid feeling and the perfect range of focal lengths for everyday usage. I got mine off ebay....for £115 so you shouldnt need to blow the budget too much to get the extra lens.
Neil
 
Not so sure the 18-200 will do the sports justice....you can get the D5000 for £499 with kit 18-55 lens and the Siggie will cost you £650, maybe a bit less if you look hard enough...so around £1150 give or take all in....
 
When reviewing it.. D90 with 18-105 then the 70-200 2.8 (if your happy with that) seems a good idea. Anyone else think so or otherwise? That means you have a good fast lens for sport and and 'walk about' lens 18-105 for everything else. That will set your feet firmly in the ground with some good kit to work up from.
 
WP-UK said:
When reviewing it.. D90 with 18-105 then the 70-200 2.8 (if your happy with that) seems a good idea. Anyone else think so or otherwise? That means you have a good fast lens for sport and and 'walk about' lens 18-105 for everything else. That will set your feet firmly in the ground with some good kit to work up from.
Click to expand...

Seems sensible....but one question...where did you find the Sigma for £500?? and the D90 kit for £700?
 
The best new kit price I can find is £765 for a UK product from Clifton Cameras although I could get a grey import for less. I do travel loads so I might buy from the US or Sing if that works out much cheaper.
 
Just watch out for HMRC at the airport on the way back if you do buy abroad....Big £££ in duty and VAT to pay if they catch you. Having said that the US woould appear to be a very cheap place to buy camera kit.
 
neilos100 said:
Just watch out for HMRC at the airport on the way back if you do buy abroad....Big £££ in duty and VAT to pay if they catch you. Having said that the US woould appear to be a very cheap place to buy camera kit.
Click to expand...

True but my office is based in NYC and my American friends and I travel back and for a lot so...........
 
Archer said:
True but my office is based in NYC and my American friends and I travel back and for a lot so...........
Click to expand...

Excellent!! You'll have to let us know when you are next travelling.....I have a shopping list ! ;) :lol:
 
Sounds like your sorted then ;) If you get the kit mentioned then you will be well and truely rolling :)
 
Yep, thanks everyone. I feel a lot less confused now :)

All that remains is to learn how to use the stuff.....anyone know of a good book;)
 
Langfords basic photography is an excellent book to start you off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top