File :-(, x, )
Used DSLR Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
Okay, Having to do with the other thread, I am looking at buying a used DSLR.. I was looking at a Pentax ISTd 6.1 megapixel. A Nikon D100, A Canon EOS D60, And A EOS Digital rebel? I don't think any of them come with lense, but that's fine. Which one should I go for as far as quality goes? The price is all about the same. I am just curious what to get, or which is the best bang for my buck (though, I know it's usually not the body, but the glass non the less)
>> Anonymous
Used D50 or Digital Rebel XT = best bang for your buck
Or Pentax if you don't mind Manually focusing a lot of older lenses (Since they are usually steals)
>> bw !ef8V18P/FY
     File :-(, x)
>>58102
It's easy to use old Pentax lenses on Canon bodies, too. The adaptors cost about ten bucks on ebay, and you'll get full ambient light and flash metering. I use an old screwmount Takumar 200mm f3.5 all the time on my XT. Here's a crappy shot of the pairing.
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58102

I don't mind manually focusing lenses, Though, It can be a bitch without the Older view finder (Split window thing)

Nikon D50? There was none, and there was no Digital Rebel XTs either.
>> bw !ef8V18P/FY
     File :-(, x)
And here's a shot using the pair.
>> Anonymous
>>58106
There was none? Not sure what you mean, are you looking at a specific camera shop? or online? or what?

Its pretty easy to find a D50 for around $350 used on camera forums, Probably the same for a Rebel XT.
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58109

I'm using Adorama. I just found a Rebel XT, for a good price, But no glass. What's the CHEAPEST lense I can start out with?
>> Anonymous
>>58105
Don't adapters like that cause vignetting?
>> Anonymous
>>58110
Cheapest? Well... 50mm f/1.8, for decent optics, kit (18-55) lens for passable optics and zoom range

>>58112
depends on what you're converting from/to
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58113

Where would I get them at? I know eBay is pretty hit or miss with lense.
>> Anonymous
>>58115
the 50mm is like $80 so you might as well get it new
>> bw !ef8V18P/FY
>>58112
Nope. You might be thinking of teleconverters for magnifying the image. These adaptors are just metal rings. There's no glass involved. The main trick is that the lens you plan to mount has to have a mount smaller than the body it'll go on. Canon EOS has a huge frickin' mount, so it's easy to fit other SLR lenses on it. Nikon, Pentax K (with one catch on film bodies), Pentax M42, Contax, Yashica, Leica R, and a whole lot more work just fine on Canon bodies with various metal ring adaptors.

Lenses with mounts bigger than Canon EOS such as Minolta/Sony, Canon FD, and a few others don't work. Also, rangefinder lenses won't, but that's for a whole other reason.
>> Anonymous
>>58105
You lose aperture coupling and in-finder aperture readout, which can be annoying to some.
>> Anonymous
>>58122
Proper teleconverters DO have glass elements. Metal rings with no glass do give you some magnification, but they're useless for telephoto because you lose infinity focus; they are used for macro photography.

As for mounting non-native lenses, it's not only the size of the mount that matters. You have to retain the flange focal distance the lens is intended for, otherwise you lose close-range or (more likely) infinity focus.
>> Anonymous
>>58122
For mounting non-native lenses, it's not only the size of the mount that matters. You have to retain the flange focal distance the lens is intended for, otherwise you lose close-range or (more likely) infinity focus.
>> Anonymous
get yourself a canon 400d with a kit lens. thats something nice to start with. if your looking for something a little nicer, go for a 30d, there are a few rebates on the 30d's in the uk at the moment.
>> Anonymous
>>58122
Well, those too, but I thought anything that extended the distance between the sensor and the start of the lens, or the sensor and the end of the lens, beyond a certain amount risked vignetting.

That's good to know, though.
>> Anonymous
>>58178
The flange focal distance (that's basically the distance between the sensor and the rear flange of the lens) is different on different cameras, and adapters are usually made with this in mind.
For example, the nominal distance is 45.46 mm for M42-mount cameras and 44 mm for Canons, thus, to properly install a M42 lens on a Canon body, you need an adapter ring exactly 1.46 mm thick.

And increasing the distance between the sensor and the lens does NOT cause vignetting, otherwise, macro photography using inch-long extender tubes would be impossible. It affects the focus, though, as I mentioned in>>58170.
>> Anonymous
>>58179
Thanks.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58179
Slapping stuff on the *end* of the lens (e.g., the really cheap telephoto extenders that screw into the filter ring, big stacks of filters, etc) can cause vignetting though.
>> Anonymous
Slightly related question: when putting both a teleconverter and a macro extender tube on a camera, in what order do I arrange them? Camera-teleconverter-extender-lens or camera-extender-teleconverter-lens?
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58175

The website I was looking at doesn't have a 400D, but does have a 30D, and it's like 1300$ dollars US. ( I live in the US)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58184
Search for Digital Rebel XTi. It's called a 400D in the rest of the world.
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58188

Yea, They are like 250-400 more then what I was looking at.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58217
Of the choices listed in your original post, I'd go with the Digital Rebel. Don't get the D60, it's hopelessly out of date. The others are also out of date, but not quite so hopelessly.

(I can't really comment on the Nikon, 'cause I'm not a Nikon guy)
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58219


So go with the Digital Rebel then? Okay, What glass?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58224
18-55mm kit lens is a good starter and a good all-around walking-around lens. Not so good for low light situations since it maxes out at f/3.5, though, so I'd also recommend picking up the 50mm f/1.8 for when you need to take pictures lit by electric lamps.

These two also have the advantage that they're Canon's cheapest two lenses, usually available for under $100 each.
>> Anonymous
>>58224
anything that starts with "Canon" and ends with "f/2.8 L"

2.8 can be replaced by anything lower.
>> Anonymous
>>58226
but it'll be crazy expensive. I'm just hoping to get a zoom lens that's f/2.8. But I doubt I can even get that. Probably going to settle for an EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5.
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
Soo, I am going to get the EOS Rebel XT, With a 50mm f/1.8, and then the Kit 17-55mm f/3.5-5.8.

Sounds good to me.
>> Anonymous
>>58276
Save yourself the money if you can afford a better lens than the craptacular kit.
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58277

So what should I get then? I know I want the 50mm f/1.8... and I want something I can do portraits with, You know, Full body shots, very shallow DoF, and fast
>> Anonymous
>>58280
Well if you don't want to spend much you don't have many options.
I'm not too familiar with Canon lenses, But a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is a good all around lens, And relatively cheap on the used market (250-300$)

Also maybe a Sigma 24mm f1.8, Its actually a fantastic lens. I always hear of problems with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies though, so test one out first. (I got mine for $200 used)
>> Bridget !IRcQER6/v6
>>58281

I think I'll just get a kit lense for temp use
>> pretentious
>>58276
That is the exact set up that I have have and it doesn't fail me. The 1.8f is a great buy for the price it is. The kit lens is surprisingly good, I think. Again, when comparing cost to what you get, it's fantastic to learn on.
Rock the XT. I got a polarizer for the 1.8 and have gotten quite a lot of use out of it.