Beginner Returning to Photography

marcg8680

marcg8680

Messages
3
Name
Marc
Edit My Images
Yes
After 2.5 years out of Photography I fancy getting back to it. I used to have a 1300D and then a 200D but sadly sold it to fund a new Mountain bike, well a quarter of it. I used to do a lot of Aviation photography at Manchester Airport and never really needed more than 200mm zoom.
So looking to get back to that which I can do more often now as it was mainly Summer only due to my only mode of transport being my motorbike, but now I have a car so easier lug my kit around.
Planning to do the above, and Landscape Photography in the UK and Greece.
My Old kit compromised of a 18-135 stm , 55 -250 and nifty fifty STM and they covered all bases for me.
Budget no more than £1100 but less would be better.
Three I’ve looked at are

Canon 2000D twin lens Kit with the 18-55 and 70- 300 (heard this is tosh compared to the 55-250)
Canon 250D Kit lens plus 55-250 for £900 new
or try Mirrorless
Canon R100.
I am up for trying a different manufacture.
 
Well I'd skip the 50mm. That 18-135 would be a good choice and notice it has 50mm in it too! The 55-250 might work in well but I'd think 250 just doesn't give much more than the 18-135 so I'd think of something longer. For myself I have an 18-200 Tamron on my Nikon D7000 and it's my all purpose lens, well just about! For shooting dogs at field trials several years ago I found it just a bit short! So got a 55-300 Nikon and worked out well. But don't get out to trials much anymore so seldom have a use for the 55-300, seem's like a nice lens though.

Myself, I have little use for those standard single mm lens's. Zoom's cover a lot above and below the single mm and todays zoom's really do a good job. I had a situation develope at a field trial shooting dog's taking off from the start. Was out a good way in front and one dog was coming right at me. Got the camera on it and way under a second the second dog came in from my left and jumped over me. Shot the photo as I was falling backward to avoid the second dog. Got them both in the picture and all thing's considered it came out great. Had the camera set at right at 55mm when I shot it. Dog's casting off at field trials don't give you the option of changing to a better lens! They are really fast casting off!
 
Last edited:
I changed from Canon to Panasonic Lumix M43 two years ago, and have never been happier.

The Panasonic 14-140 lens is similar to the 18-135, but gives a wider range, and the 45-200 is almost the same range as the Canon 55-250
The stabilisation is much better than Canon, and they are easier to use,

Though, if you are going to stay with Canon, I would agree with the idea of buying what you had (but leave out the 1300D and get a 650D instead of it if you need two cameras), will enable you to get straight back into taking photos, and see how things progress.
 
I would skip to micro four thirds. The image quality is the same as Canon aps-c but lighter. Canon aren’t really investing in aps-c so unless you’re not bothered and just want a one time second purchase.
 
Personally I'd go for the Canon R100 with the 18-45 lens, and buy a 55-250 zoom as well. Adding a 50mm f1.8 brings the total in a bit over your budget, but not by so much. The R100 has the newer RF mount, so more 'future proof' than DSLRs maybe. Of course, a DSLR opens up a much larger s/h lens market, so you could get what you want for a big chunk less.
 
I never found the 50mm that handy with a crop sensor, I liked the 35mm which is closer to the same angle of view of the 50mm on a full frame, The sigma 30mm 1.4 is better if you can find one that works (I went through three in the shop and all front focused by a fair bit) and gave up and bought the 18-35mm 1.8 art which is a cracker but wont fit your budget.
The Canon 55-250mm is better than the 70-300, at least the ones I've tried.
 
Bridges said:
Personally I'd go for the Canon R100 with the 18-45 lens, and buy a 55-250 zoom as well. Adding a 50mm f1.8 brings the total in a bit over your budget, but not by so much. The R100 has the newer RF mount, so more 'future proof' than DSLRs maybe. Of course, a DSLR opens up a much larger s/h lens market, so you could get what you want for a big chunk less.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand why people do this. You have an 18-45mm zoom and a 55-200mm zoom and neither overlap anywhere? It would seem to me that an 18-140mm and a 55-300mm would cover everything a lot easier. If you are walking around and run into a shot the 18-45mm is just somewhat to short for, you have to call time out and switch lens's to the 55-200mm and hope everything stays the same! Things change, especially lighting and often position, they can easily change while you are busy changing lens's! With an 18-140mm and a 55-300mm you have every thing from 18mm to 300mm covered. And if 140mm isn't gonna handle it, chances are you'd have time to change lens's. Unless of course, light changes while your changing lens's.

Something I experienced about light changing. I had the first reader photo in Talking Picture's in Shutterbug Magazine. Took it with my old Yashica 635 camera. Took two shot's from the same exact spot. First photo in in "Talking Piture's" second was a wash out. Time it took me to wind the film to the next frame the light changed and never saw it till I Got the film processed! Same building in the same spot and same camera in the same sport and photo's one frame apart and difference in night and day between the two! bet I can roll to the next frame faster than anyone can change a lens!
 
Last edited:
Don Fischer said:
I really don't understand why people do this. You have an 18-45mm zoom and a 55-200mm zoom and neither overlap anywhere? It would seem to me that an 18-140mm and a 55-300mm would cover everything a lot easier. If you are walking around and run into a shot the 18-45mm is just somewhat to short for, you have to call time out and switch lens's to the 55-200mm and hope everything stays the same! Things change, especially lighting and often position, they can easily change while you are busy changing lens's! With an 18-140mm and a 55-300mm you have every thing from 18mm to 300mm covered. And if 140mm isn't gonna handle it, chances are you'd have time to change lens's. Unless of course, light changes while your changing lens's.
Click to expand...
What happens if you have an 18-140 on, and the shot requires a 300mm lens? You have a lot of redundancy with the combo you mention.

I get where you're coming from, but it's never been a problem for me. You learn to anticipate, and prepare accordingly. I prefer shorter range zooms because the image quality from such is better than from 'superzooms', ime. I don't own anything longer than 200mm, and have seldom felt the need for it. Of course, everyone's different.
 
Last edited:
Bridges said:
What happens if you have an 18-140 on, and the shot requires a 300mm lens?

I get where you're coming from, but it's never been a problem for me. You learn to anticipate, and prepare accordingly. I prefer shorter range zooms because the image quality from such is better than from 'superzooms', ime. I don't own anything longer than 200mm, and have seldom felt the need for it. Of course, everyone's different.
Click to expand...
Well easy answer. If you have on an 18-45 and the shot requires a 300mm, it is probably far enough off maybe nothing will change. In either case taking the time to get out another lens, put it on and put the other lens away is going to allow a lot of time for things to change. Then of course you could take the shot with the 18-45 and hope to be able to crop out something that probably won't be as good as an 18-140 might have given you! I have an 18-200 tamron on my DSLR about 95% of the time and it cover almost everything between 45mm and 250mm. There's trade off's in most everything we do. Going with an 18-45mm almost guarantees your gonna run into a trade off. Of course if all you do is street photography the 18-45 might work,,,might! but Not sure because I don't do street photography. Had an 18-105mm years ago and as my go to lens I found it left me wanting far to many time's. Again, I don't do street photography.
 
Last edited:
I don't really get the argument you're trying to make. I think it's a non-issue, personally.

Don Fischer said:
Well I'd skip the 50mm. That 18-135 would be a good choice and notice it has 50mm in it too!
Click to expand...
Well yes. But a 50mm prime does have the much faster maximum aperture. F1.8 is a massive difference to the f4-5.6 or so a18-140 zoom will offer. I often take a 50 prime with me whatever I'm doing, cos that fast aperture often comes in very handy.
 
Don Fischer said:
You have an 18-45mm zoom and a 55-200mm zoom
Click to expand...

He doesn’t say he’s still got them and it seems unlikely if, as he says, he sold the camera(s) to raise money to part fund a bike.
 
If you liked what you had, it sounds like a good starting point - I find that on APSC cameras 18-55, 55-200 and a prime are a good combination of lenses, covering most bases. I am a fan of mirrorless, but my only concern with the R100 is the lack of native RF-S lenses. You can use older Canon lenses, but that requires an adaptor, which eats into your budget.
 
Craikeybaby said:
If you liked what you had, it sounds like a good starting point - I find that on APSC cameras 18-55, 55-200 and a prime are a good combination of lenses, covering most bases. I am a fan of mirrorless, but my only concern with the R100 is the lack of native RF-S lenses. You can use older Canon lenses, but that requires an adaptor, which eats into your budget.
Click to expand...
I loved it was a fantastic Combo. The 18-135mm was my most used lens for everything. The 55-250 was my Manchester Airport lens and the fifty i just used for messing around with in low light.
I'd like to go Mirrorless but really loved the Vari Angle Touch screen on the 200d
Cant afford the R50.

Plus the R100 seems to be the Mirrorless equivalent of a 2000d.
Still seems to be alot more EF-S lenses than RF ones still also.

But is Mirrorless the future and is now the right time?
 
Last edited:
Don Fischer said:
I really don't understand why people do this. You have an 18-45mm zoom and a 55-200mm zoom and neither overlap anywhere?
Click to expand...
An overlap? Luxury.

When I were a lad we had one lens if we were lucky. We used our feet as zooms and we was happy. Better than cold stones for tea.
 
Pound Coin said:
An overlap? Luxury.

When I were a lad we had one lens if we were lucky. We used our feet as zooms and we was happy. Better than cold stones for tea.
Click to expand...
One lens?! You were lucky. We only had a pinhole camera made from the shoebox we lived in in t' middle of the road.
 
marcg8680 said:
I loved it was a fantastic Combo. The 18-135mm was my most used lens for everything. The 55-250 was my Manchester Airport lens and the fifty i just used for messing around with in low light.
I'd like to go Mirrorless but really loved the Vari Angle Touch screen on the 200d
Cant afford the R50.

Plus the R100 seems to be the Mirrorless equivalent of a 2000d.
Still seems to be alot more EF-S lenses than RF ones still also.

But is Mirrorless the future and is now the right time?
Click to expand...

I think mirrorless must be the future, optical viewfinders with flappy mirrors seem a bit stone age in many ways.

But is it the right time? Reading what you say about what you had, I think in your case probably not.

To get what you had would not be too expensive, you know what you can do with it, you obviously miss it, so I wonder if you went for something else, would you be disappointed?
Would you still be missing your old set up?

It would also give you time to see how what you want to do fits in with newer cameras, and time to find the right one if that is what you decide, and buying a 200D (or 800D) used and used lenses you won't lose a huge amount if you want to sell it again to upgrade later.
 
I agree - mirrorless is the future, but I don't think that Canon are ready at the lower end yet, with the range of lenses. However, I would also be reluctant to build a DSLR setup based on new kit, if you are planning to upgrade soon.

Personally, I would probably play the long game, rather than going all in and just get an R100 (or R50) and kit lens, then add the longer lens later. If you are not in a hurry, Canon have waiting lists to test drive both the R50 and R100 https://testdrive.trythekit.com/cameras/eos-r-cameras/.
 
Pound Coin said:
An overlap? Luxury.

When I were a lad we had one lens if we were lucky. We used our feet as zooms and we was happy. Better than cold stones for tea.
Click to expand...
Lol! But we were happy! You try telling that to kids today etc etc...

In my early days, I'd use a 24mm, 50mm and 135mm (manual focus) lens combo. A mate used a 35/85mm combo pretty exclusively. We usually got the shots we wanted. And both having Nikon, we could at least share lenses if we were out together. I remember getting an 80-200 f4 AI-S zoom; wow. The height of decadence.
 
Had a rethink and I’m gonna save up a little more and actually have a look into Mirrorless.
looking at the Z30/Z50 or the Canon R50. Did consider the R100 but the lack of touch screen that could be moved like my 200D is a backwards step.
 
droj said:
:D:D:D
Click to expand...
You should have seen me when I finally bought an AF camera, with an AF zoom lens. I became aloof; looking down on those who still had to use physical effort to focus their lenses. I was above that now; part of an elite few, who enjoyed automatic focussing. People spoke of us in hushed tones; women would want to talk to me. AF literally changed my live.
 
Bridges said:
You should have seen me when I finally bought an AF camera, with an AF zoom lens. I became aloof; looking down on those who still had to use physical effort to focus their lenses. I was above that now; part of an elite few, who enjoyed automatic focussing. People spoke of us in hushed tones; women would want to talk to me. AF literally changed my live.
Click to expand...
I saw no need for that new fangled auto focus witchcraft until after the turn of the new century. My MF cameras served me well for >20 years. And I only shot with an AF SLR for a couple of years before finally realising that film was a waste of time and money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top