How should I start?

Hi everyone,

My name is Varsin and I'm from Sri Lanka. I'm 28. Since my childhood, I was very interested in nature and wildlife. Now I've developed an interest of photographing the nature. After researching on the internet, I'm lost. I really don't know how should I start. My budget is around 3000 USD. Previously I owned a digital point and shoot camera which had a 3x optical zoom. Now I feel a need to upgrade to a digital SLR. I tried my friends Cannon 30D with a 24-70mm F2.8 L and I was blown away by it's performance. It produces great pictures than my P&S. Also, when I try to shoot birds, I'm not able to get tight frames with the 3x optical zoom of my camera. So I also need a lens which will give me enough reach to shoot animals and birds.

I've decided to buy a canon 30D, but when it comes to lenses...I'm really confused. I don't want to buy low quality lenses. I don't want to upgrade later to a good lens. I had thought of buying the 24-70mm F2.8, but it is not wide enough with the 1.6 crop factor of the 30D. Sometimes I shoot landscapes and I really need a wider lens there. Then I thought of buying the 17-40. I think this lens fits my needs better. Now when it comes to longer reach...I thought of buying the 300mm f4l is. I also shoot some sports and portraits...so I've also kept the 70-200mm f4 in my consideration. I think this time I'll buy 2 lenses. One lens should be a general walkaround and I need the other lens for shooting wild animals.

I want to spend money in a way so that later I should not sell lens and buy a better one. Like if I'll buy a 30D, a 17-40 and70-200 f4...then after a year I'll buy a longer lens.

Also, can you please tell me if there is some other hood for the 17-40mm lens which can be used on 1.6 crop factor cameras.

3000$ is a lot of money for good equipment.
I would suggest to buy a good camera and a quality zoom or primes. And keep the extra cash handy. Do not rush and buy equipment untill you know what you want to do.
Spend few $s for good books or workshop if you are a beginner.

30D and lenses you mention are very very good. I do not know of hood. But it is just equipment in the end.

I have seen a very similar post few days back.

All the best,

Varsin, the lenses you have listed would be good ones to start with. If and when you begin to concentrate on a specific kind of nature photography (landscapes, wildlife, birds, macro, etc.) you can acquire lenses that suit that type of photography best. For example, bird photographers usually end up with 500 or 600mm supertelephotos, landscape phtogs may end up with wide angle "L" lenses, or even tilt-shift lenses - it all depends on what kind of photography you end up concentrating on.

BTW, my Canon EF 100/2.8 USM maco lens is one of my most used - for macro, portrait, initimate landscape, and even automotive photography. This particular lens is extremely sharp, reasonably fast at f/2.8, and focuses as quickly as any other lens with its USM motor.

Good luck and we look forward to your participation hereon NPN!

I would actually suggest starting with one general purpose lens (something like the 24-105L if you want top-of-the-line), and spending time on technque - composition, exposure, processing, etc. before investing in more gear. More lenses will not make you a better photographer - start from the start.

Guy

In a heartbeat, I would choose the 100-400mm IS lense from Canon. I use it with a 10D and it's so versitile, I almost never take it off. I shoot primarily wildlife and birds, but I do have a wide angle Sigma(24mm) <200$ for special occasions. I'm on a budget, just like you.

Thanks everyone for your help. I think first I'll buy a 30d, a good solid tripod and a general walkaround lens. But I'm confused between the 24-105, the 24-70 and the 17-40. I know the 24-105 has IS and has longer reach than the 24-70. The 24-70 has that 1 stop of light and the 17-40 is wide. But I think I'll make a choice between 24-105 and the 24-70. You guys are very much experienced. Can you please help me with this? I don't know much about photography, so making a choice is more difficult for me.

Good to see that in this last post you included that tripod. A tripod helped my photography more than any one other piece of equipement when I was just starting off. A good tripod and head is a must.

Sorry I cannot help with the Canon lens selection. I am a Nikon shooter...

Nathan

OK, even though I don't use Canon, I'll step in with some general observations. For starters, the typical beginner mistake (that most including me) makes is to concentrate on the camera. Really, that's not the important thing. Lenses are what's important. From what I've read, the difference between the Canon 20D and the 30D is marginal. (Marginal = very little.) You can buy a used 20D for considerably less money right now. That would leave with you money to spend on the more important things in your system. For example, you didn't even mention a tripod at all, even though it's the single most critical thing for sharp landscape photos. Set aside at least $500 U.S. for a decent one--that's where to start. Next, think carefully about what kinds of photos you want to take that your current lens doesn't let you. You might end up with a Canon 100-400mm lens for wildlife. Next, how wide do you need? If it was me, I'd be looking at the Tokina 12-24mm or Sigma 10-30mm. Don't worry if the 24-70mm is shorter than the 24-105mm. Doesn't matter. What matters is the quality it can produce. The 17-40mm wouldn't be anywhere near wide enough for me doing landscapes. For others, it might work. Put your thinking on how wide your widest lens can go, and how long the longest can go. Don't worry if you have big gaps in the middle--it doesn't matter for what you said you want. For landscapes you'll want a polarizer and a couple of 2-stop ND grad filters, such as HiTech brand. Those will cost you some money--$200. They will make a bigger difference in your images than will the difference between a 20D and a 30D, I would bet. Here's what I would suggest, based on what info you gave me:

1. Decent tripod $200-500 (eBay)
2. Canon 100-400mm $1,400
3. Tokina 12-24mm $500
4. Polarizer $50
5. Canon 20D camera $900 (eBay)
6. Camera bag $ 50
TOTAL $3,450

Note just how fast money gets eaten up, and I didn't even include a ND grad filter!!! Why do I say a tripod is more important than a 30D camera? I highly doubt you will be able to tell if a landscape photo was taken with the 20D rather than the 30D. I can almost guarantee that you can tell if a landscape photo was made with a tripod or not. Can I get an "amen" out there from other experienced photographyers? Don't waste money on a 30D when a 20D will do what you need. Cameras will come and go. Put the money on a good tripod and good lenses. You will NOT regret that. I speak from experience.


Kent in SD

I have the 20D and it is an excellent camera. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it over the 30D. As Kent stated the 30D has very minor improvements over the 20D! You DEFINITELY want a tripod!

If you want you can check out my website. All of my pictures were taken with the Canon 20D and 95% of them were taken with the 20D mounted to a sturdy tripod.

you might thry the 20 or 30d with a 400 5.6 ( this would fit your budget) its way better thant he 100-400 and you can get usable stuff with the 1.4 although u lose AF function,, but if your into landscaping, maybe the 100-400 would be better overall as far as versatiliy, or the 300f4 is,, you have a semi macro due to mfd, af at 5.6 with 1.4 convrertor on the 20/30d

Hi Varsin

Looks like you're getting some good advice here. I'll add my suggestions too.

To begin spend some time looking at the images in the various forums here on NPN. A lot of photographers post details of the equipment they have used. This will let you see the types of images you'd be interested in producing and what kinds of lenses people are using.

For the camera body, the Canon body you're interested in will do fine as would a used 20D. While we all tend to love to have the latest and greatest cameras the body will make less difference to you than the lenses you use.

Lenses are the biggest decision you'll need to make. If birds are a major interest then the longest lens you can afford would be advisable. The Canon 100-400 is excellent. If you could be happy with a fixed focal length the Canon 400 f5.6 is also extremely good and can probably be found used for a very reasonable price. Both these lenses are from Canon's L series which are superb optically and very robust as well.

A lot of nature photographers use macro lenses. As Jim mentioned the Canon 100 f2.8 macro is excellent and also reasonably priced. There's also an older version around that doesn't have the USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) which means its autofocus is much slower but optically it's excellent. Because of the older focussing system this lens may be found used quite cheaply. Wide angle lenses are another decision for you to make. If you use wide angles a lot I'd recommend getting one of the L series again. My own photography is concentrated on birds so I rarely use mine but I do have one of the older 20-35mm f2.8L. This lens also doesn't have the USM but is very sharp and does perfectly for me.

Tripods have been mentioned too. The Manfrotto 055 (Bogen in the USA) is a good sturdy tripod that is a good value. Manfrotto also makes a variety of heads. I'd recommend you get a ball head with a quick release plate system. Make sure the head is study enough to hold the biggest lens you'll use.

Extension tubes are very handy to have too. These tubes have no optics in them but allow you to focus much closer than the lens would normally allow. Kenko makes a good set for the Canon system. With extension tubes on the 100-400 I have done some very acceptable close-up work.

Teleconvertors are useful to carry too. With the Canon 1.4 you can make a 100-400 into a 140-560mm with good sharpness. Do know that with the camera body you are considering you would not have autofocus with the 1.4 on.

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse you further. All the best with your nature photography.

Thanks everyone for your advice and help. I never thought people here are so helpful and kind.
Today, my friend told me that I should buy a canon 300mm f4L IS. I will prefer this lens against the 100-400 because of better optical quality, macro capabilities and great results even with the 1.4TC. I really don't like the push pull style of the 100-400. I know the zoom is very helpful but the push pull style is kind of awkward. So what do you guys think about the 300mm F4L IS.

I think now I'll buy the following:
Camera body - Canon 30D
General walkaround lens - Still not decided, but I think the 24-70 F2.8
Telephoto for wildlife and birds - 300mm F4L IS and 1.4 TC
Tripod with ballhead

Please tell me if I'm going right by buying this equipment.

i can tell your from experice that while the build quiality is not a good as the canon 23-70,,, the tamron 28-75 2.8 does very very well, and at about half the price and half the weitght,,,it is well recieved by others on many forums as well, and while there may be a few bad copies around, there are those with all,, but it has certainly been a fine lens for me,,, you might ck some other forums in its regard, but again, widhgt adn money wise, its a true diamond in the rough,,woudl leave you about 500+ extra cash for other stuff

Hi again Varsin
I think you're on the right track. The 300 f4 is an excellent lens which works really well with a 1.4 and with a 2x TC (teleconvertor). The Canon TCs are top quality - I do recommend you buy the Canon 1.4 rather than another brand as the quality will show in your images.

When you select a tripod and head I have a couple of suggestions. If possible get a tripod that will allow you to place your camera viewfinder at eye height without having to resort to using a center post as the 3 legs are more stable. Also with the head, I strongly recommend a ballhead rather than one with twist levers (like those for video) or one with a pistol grip (which is very fast but not very stable with longer lenses). If your budget will allow it a ballhead with an Arca Swiss type quick release plate is the best solution. Have a look at sites like www.reallyrightstuff.com who have quite a detailed description of that type of quick release system and also talk in detail about why to select a ballhead over other types.

Of course all this is only equipment. The real key to success in nature photography is your hard work and time. Once you get your gear you need to be out there shooting at every opportunity as well as studying photographic technique and spending your time looking at other photographer's work.

I wish you all the best. It's a great journey you're starting on.

Ed - Thanks a lot for helping me in deciding what equipment I should buy. I know, the height of the tripod is very important and when we use the center post of a tripod, our tripod is no longer a tripod...it's a monopod.

You guys are very friendly and helpful...Thanks everyone for your help.