camera question

[jshields]

ok so i know there have been a million of these posts before, but i had to start a new one! i am looking for a new or slightly used digital camera for next year. i want a cannon or nikon or similar type camera that allows me to change lenses, play with the iso and f/stop settings, etc. i don't know alot about lenses and what would be good. the main thing i am looking to gain is something that can shoot at a much wider angle than the cannon powershot camera that i have now. it doesn't have to be top of the line, in fact i would like to spend $300-350 or so for everything. i have found a local posting on craigslist for a canon eos rebel for $350. its the DS6041 model and the lens that comes with it is the EFS lens 18-55 mm. is this a good price, and would i be happy with the lens? thanks for any suggestions or help in advance!

 

[Darren Stephens]

That is the standard lens that comes with the camera and it will not be suitable for what you are wanting to do with it. IMO you will need at least a 200mm. However you might be able to outfit that standard lens with a fisheye attachment and get those wide shots. Always remember....decide on your brand, invest in the lens and then buy a camera. Your lens will last through several cameras during your photography career. They can be several times more expensive than your camera.

 

[Greg Campbell]

$350 for a 300D and 'kit' lens seems quite high. A quick look at Fredmiranda buy/sell forums shows them going for ~$150. Ebay too.

For storm chasing, you'll eventually want one of those superwide zooms that range from ~10mm to ~24mm. Unfortunately they aren't cheap, even used.

Sigma makes a 15mm~30mm that might(?) not be too bad. ( I don't know anything about it!) That would give you a 24mm equivalent with most of the cameras you're likely to buy.

In the meantime, the cheapo 18~55 kit lens will be ' sorta OK,' but don't expect too much.

If you really need superwide on a budget, pick up an old Canon FD film body for <$50 then hunt down a Vivitar 19mm or 20mm lens. They are respectable lenses and go for about $100. Even the genuine Canon FD 20mm (a very nice piece of glass!) isn't terribly expensive, averaging ~$150. Take note that none of these manual focus Canon lenses will work properly on a digital SLR.

 

[jshields]

this is where my lack of knowledge comes into play. how does the millimeter size of the lens come into wide angle shots and quality? Darren mentioned getting a 200 mm lens(higher number than the 18-55mm lens that i mentioned) but then Greg mentioned 10mm-24mm and up to 30 mm lens(which is kindof lower)? does the mm even have anything to do with whether its a wide angle lens? thanks again guys! sorry for the stupid questions

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

The Canon 10-22mm f/3.5 lens is the preferred lens for the Rebel series of cameras - for storm chasing purposes. I have one. They aren't cheap - about $500 used if you are very lucky. The stock 18-55mm lens isn't a very good lens; and will be marginal in its ability to get great shots. Photography isn't an inexpensive hobby; I've got about $1700 into what I have. It is easy to spend thousands more. Sigma also makes a popular wide-angle lens that you might consider...

Some of the newer point 'n shoot cameras have built-in lenses that have a decent wide angle capacity. Don't ask me which ones they are - as I didn't go that route. You may need to research further.

 

[Tyler Burg]

10mm is the widest you can go with Digital (or at least the widest they make them without a fisheye distortion). 200mm would be a zoom lens (guessing around 5-10 degree FOV), whereas a 10mm would be an Ultra wide angle lens (about 110+ degree FOV).

Honestly I don't know of any great setups for under $400, though I've never really looked. I'd suggest investing in a DSLR (you won't regret it!) maybe a Nikon D40 or D60 body and pick up a Sigma 10-20mm lens... thats all you would ever need for storm structure shots and the lens will keep its value, but you're looking at throwing down a grand or more. I'd suggest getting some quality equipment not something you'll replace in two years.

 

[Greg Campbell]

I think maybe Darren misread your post.
Smaller numbers are wider, but with digital cameras, the sensor's size also affects the angle of view.

With 35mm film, or a 'full frame' digital camera, this table is accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view#Common_lens_angles_of_view

Most semi-affordable digital cameras have a sub-sized sensor array. This is bad for wide angle shots, since the smaller sensor can't see the full field of view.
See: http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/part3/3B.html

 

[Mike Deep]

I wish KEH.com wasn't down right now. I bet you could price a DRebel and 18-55 IS within that budget.

If you can't budget for an ultra wide angle like the 10-22, make sure go for the new IS version of the 18-55, by the way. It's a much better lens than it's predecessors. I firmly believe all of the old 18-55's should be gathered up and dumped into an active volcano.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I'd avoid the original rebel(300d). There was a pretty worthwhile leap in better noise levels by the second version, the XT(350d)...and I don't think the jump in price will be very great given there are now 3 models out after those first 2. I owned both and the XT is way better. And yeah, avoid the original 18-55 like the plague lol.

I have the 17-40mm and 17mm almost isn't wide enough for chasing. It's borderline to get the structure in there near a storm at all(couple miles from the base and you aren't likely to get the whole structure at 17mm so you'd have to drive even further away). 10mm is just hard to beat for chasing(on a 1.6x crop camera like most all the prosumer dslr's will be).

Good luck on the whole lens thing. It doesn't seem to be a great time to be a canon lens buyer. They have jacked up all the prices lately. I think I paid $1440 for the 100-400L just a couple years ago. BH has them for $1680 now. I noticed the jackage while looking at teleconverters which are also a lot more now. Looks like the 10-22 EF-s is also now about $100 more than when I got it a couple years ago.

 

[Allan Jeffers]

A 11-16mm f/2.8 tokina will set you back 600 bucks new. I find it a great lens, infact its to the point, its on my camera 75% of the time at the very least

 

[Tyler Burg]

After hearing the complaints in this thread about the canon kit lens, I thought I'd mention that Nikons kit lens is a VERY good lens, one of their best for the price. I only had the 18-55mm for 18 months before getting a UWA sigma 10-20mm, so now I rarely use the kit lens because I find myself either going ultra wide or telephoto and not a ton in between, but it is a great lens and it sells for just over $100. Of course 18mm isn't really great for storm structure...

 

[Derek Weston]

A 11-16mm f/2.8 tokina will set you back 600 bucks new. I find it a great lens, infact its to the point, its on my camera 75% of the time at the very least

Some consider it to be the top wide angle option for non full frame Canon DSLRs

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon

If the difference between 10 and 11mm isn't appreciable... I might lean towards the Tokina.

 

[jshields]

thanks for all the quick responses guys! i kindof figured i would be pushing my luck to try and get something for that cheap. it's pretty amazing how much camera equipment can cost i think i will just have to keep saving and hopefully have enough by next may to find something that would be worth my money. please continue to feel free to give any suggestions, thanks again!

 

[Darren Addy]

I don't want to discourage you from getting a DSLR, but it isn't going to get you to your stated goal of "wider" without spending an additional $450 (minimum). Your best price would be for the older/slower Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 lens on the DSLR of your choice. (with the 1.6 focal length multiplier on a Canon, that 10mm is a 16mm **35mm equiv.**

Just to zig when everybody else is zagging, however... you can get wider and very good image quality if you go with a better point 'n shoot: the Panasonic DMC-LX3 (24-60mm, f2.0) and add a DMW-LW46, 0.75x wide angle converter lens. This yields around an 18mm (35mm equivalent) angle of view. (For comparison: The 18mm end of the DSLR kit lens you get, will give you a 28mm **35mm equiv**). The LX3 (10.1 mp) is about $449 at Amazon, but has Leica optics. The wide converter will set you back another $165, but together you've just spent $600, while the DSLR option is going to put you closer to $1100.

Here's an image gallery taken with the combo.

 

[Greg Campbell]

While I was being somewhat tongue in cheek suggesting you buy a - gasp! - film camera, the idea will work! Wide angle shots on chrome film will look gorgeous. You'll need to drag around two cameras, but OTOH you'll have a spare in case something happens to your point and shoot. Heck, for another $40 or so, you could buy a 28 and 50mm lens, and have an entire backup kit. Just something to keep in mind if Spring rolls around before you save up enough loot to go the DSLR route.