too good to be true deal

feedback looks decent for similar packages, lenses are adequate, probably not too bad overall.
 
Well, the kit lens is ok but not great, the 75-300 is *blurgh* (I have one of those but it doesn't make my forum sig as its chuffin outdated dreadful junk) and the rest well, quite frankly junk too.

Yes to buy those extra bits "properly" will cost you more than the difference between the body only price and the thousand quid, but really if you are buying the sooper-dooper 40D you won't want a big pile of poo to go with it.

I wouldn't even say you were getting your full money's worth of "junk"...

Get a body only and buy the bits you need as you need them.
 
Agreed, not much point having a great camera like this and putting cheap glass on the end. As desantnik has said, get the body only and your choice of lens(s) (plenty of threads on here about which lenses are good - or get the kit with 17-85mm) and buy other stuff as and when you need it.
 
decisions decisions....
i had a little play with a 40d today and a nikon d80 both very nice in the hand, features all very good.. think the 40d is a little big tho, my wife will be using it a lot as well, so i think the d80 may be a more sensible option, and save the extra cash for a second lens :)
 
Ask yourself the question......If I bought a 40D body only would I then spend more of my cash on anything else in that kit at a later date?

If the answer is "no" then the kit will be a total waste of your money;)
 
:agree:My point exactly;)
 
If you like the D80, have a look at the 400D - those are pretty much the equivalents.. the 400D is much smaller than the 40D.
 
why are you all underestimating the 75-300? it's not bad - at least mine isn't, and it's a decent starter zoom lens which will still sell / p/x for at least £70 when you need to upgrade...

here's a sample (handheld) panning shot from my 75-300 (this was moving about 5 mph :D)



dumpertruck.jpg


another panning shot...

seat.jpg


And some owls....

owl4.jpg
 
Wez,

You're not going to like me after this but......

Your shots illustrate the point excellently IMHO.....sorry.

Bob
 
I was going to say the same Bob...
 
desantnik said:
the 75-300 is *blurgh* (I have one of those but it doesn't make my forum sig as its chuffin outdated dreadful junk) and the rest well, quite frankly junk too.
Click to expand...

And yet "Canon EF-70-300mm F4/5.6 IS" does appear in your sig, which is the identical lens with the addition of IS?
 
Canon Bob said:
Your shots illustrate the point excellently IMHO.....sorry.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit harsh to be honest. The first two are pretty sharp, processing could bring them out more, the owls are at 1/50 and 300mm, camera shake could well be in play. Edit: the sweeper looks to have been taken at 1/13 ( :shrug: ) according to the exif, not an ideal shot to compare sharpness with.

I think we need to remember that not every one wants, or can afford, to spend hundreds/thousands on a lens. For someone wanting an adequate kit, at reasonable cost I still think it's decent value.
 
Steep said:
And yet "Canon EF-70-300mm F4/5.6 IS" does appear in your sig, which is the identical lens with the addition of IS?
Click to expand...

The 70-300 is entirely different from the 75-300. The 70-300 IS is actually a good lens, while most reports of the 75-300 are sub-par at best.

I'll scan a roundup of consumer telephotos I found in a magazine. The 70-300 IS and the Sigma 70-300 APO came out on top.

Edit: Done. 10MB PDF with high res scans be downloaded here when it finishes uploading (it says 6minutes, so 6 mins from last edit time.)

I'm going to bed :D
 
leoedin said:
The 70-300 is entirely different from the 75-300.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is completely different.

Besides the IS and obviously being 5mm wider, the "ultra-low dispersion glass lens element corrects chromatic aberration to achieve high resolution and contrast throughout the zoom range without colour fringing on subject outlines". The UD element is the same technology used in the L series...

Additionally "Optimised Super Spectra lens coatings and lens element shaping suppress flare and ghosting - more prone to occur with digital cameras due to reflection off the image sensor. Coatings also help achieve true colour balance and sharp high contrast images."

The 70-300 IS remains in my bag for the 70-200mm range (it is a bit soft above 200mm) pending its replacement with the 70-200 L, however I would argue that price/performance its probably the best zoom Canon currently make...
 
dod said:
I think we need to remember that not every one wants, or can afford, to spend hundreds/thousands on a lens. For someone wanting an adequate kit, at reasonable cost I still think it's decent value.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly Dod but that fact does not make a poor lens into a good one. Given the cost of the lens it is proably better value than a 100-400....15% of the price and 50% of the quality.

Bob
 
Added to the fact that just because someone has L glass (or equivelant) it doesn't stop them taking holiday snaps.
 
Kev M said:
Added to the fact that just because someone has L glass (or equivelant) it doesn't stop them taking holiday snaps.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it does Kev...they can't afford holidays anymore:LOL:
 
desantnik said:
Indeed it is completely different.

Besides the IS and obviously being 5mm wider
Click to expand...

Thousand apologies to leoedin, I misread the 75 thinking it was a 70-300, I shall go chastise myself directly!
 
dod said:
I think we need to remember that not every one wants, or can afford, to spend hundreds/thousands on a lens. For someone wanting an adequate kit, at reasonable cost I still think it's decent value.
Click to expand...

Very true, each lens has its market and target customer. Generally in the Canon Range there are 4 types of zoom lenses. Kit, Consumer, Enthusiast and Pro.

  • Kit - produced for a price point to sell with the Camera Body for people who don't have anything else to make the offering look like a good deal, uses cheapest glass and materials (plastic lens mounts) with min aperture varies through zoom range and slow about f4 - 5.6. The image quality (edge & centre sharpness, chromatic abrasion, vignetting etc.) is Poor to OK
  • Consumer - Aimed at people who already have a DSLR and want a lens for a purpose. Uses better quality glass and materials (metal lens mounts) with min aperture varies through zoom and slow about f4 - 5.6. The image quality is OK to Good
  • Enthusiast - Aimed at amateur togs who want the top image quality but can't afford pro lenses. Uses Pro quality glass and top materials (includes weather sealing) with min aperture usually fixed through range but still slow usually at about f4. The image quality is Good to Excellent.
  • Pro - Uses Pro quality glass and the best materials (designed to meet the battering a pro will give his kit) with min aperture fixed through range and fast usually about f2.8. The image quality is Good to Excellent.

N.B. Nikon doesn't have the Enthusiast range :crying:

However I think the point people were making is that it seems daft spending £700 - £800 on a DSLR body to then spend only £200 - £300 lenses and accessories, that you'll want / need to upgrade soon.

I always suggest that if people have a budget for an SLR kit they should spend more on the lens(es) than on the body unless their budget is so low that that's not possible. The reason for this is that a good lens will last much longer than the useful life of a DSLR body and therefore you could argue that a SLR lens is an investment.

However, it is academic Andy70 has bought a Nikon D80 :clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top