Canon, Sigma or Canon lens?

[handymanshandle]

So I plan on buying a 60D (body only) used or new in like a year or so [where ever it's the cheapest at the time of purchase and that will ship to Minnesota or is purchasable in MN].

 

I'm either considering the new Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM "Art". I'm sure the Sigma would technically be more useful, however from like what I can tell the Canon lens should be good enough to be a starter lens even though it's the equivalent of an 80mm lens which could technically allow me to take macro shots if I desired. Should I be frugal and go with the nifty fifty or extravagant yet practical and go with the Sigma?

I realise that there is a huge price discrepancy over the nifty fifty and the Sigma. Alternatively should I go with the dark kit lens that the 60D ships with (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6)?   

 

I'm not 100% sure what I want to shoot but I think I want to test the waters with Photo Journalism, Wildlife, Floral, Street, Landscape, Videography, and Studio Portrait and Portrait. So I'm not exactly sure which one would provide me the best bokeh/shallow depth of field and sharpness. So I guess my budget it US$900 Max, preferably $800 or less for a lens. Also lomography intrigues me (but lomography lenses are cheap-er [i'd suspect] or maybe I can achieve that effect with certain filter colors and photoshop.)

 

[EpicGeekonFire]

Since you aren't sure about your future in photography, I'd recommend getting the nifty for now and moving on to something else later. You can always sell it and get basically full value of it after you need to move on. 

 

Just my opinion if it was me and my money. 

[dragoon20005]

the first two lenses will be good based on your uses

 

 

the Canon 70D is a worthy DSLR but it still costly

 

try looking at the 700D or the recent 760D

[handymanshandle]

Since you aren't sure about your future in photography, I'd recommend getting the nifty for now and moving on to something else later. You can always sell it and get basically full value of it after you need to move on. 

 

Just my opinion if it was me and my money. 

Makes sense, it's the frugal and practical way... Even though buying both the Sigma and nifty would only exceed my budget by maybe $30. 

 

the first two lenses will be good based on your uses

 

 

the Canon 70D is a worthy DSLR but it still costly

 

try looking at the 700D or the recent 760D

 

Like I said above, going with the Sigma and nifty I wouldn't be exceeding my absolute maximum budget by too much and I'd be getting two great lenses.

I know I originally wanted a 70D but realistically speaking it makes the most sense to go with an older body and decent lenses so that when Canon releases a 70D successor and I can afford the upgrade cost that I would hopefully and effectively be buying myself a superior body to that of the 60D or 70D. 

 

Doesn't the 700D basically have the same sensor as the 60D? Now the 760D/T6s, that's a hard one because at the same time it's $100 cheaper than the 70D but it has a better sensor but it's smaller so eh not too sure what I'd want to do with that. Honestly I think with the 60D at least I'm getting a sensor that will allow me to do all that I wish to do and make it justifiable to proceed onto something higher end (more expensive) Considering B&H has it for $579 (new I'm suspecting) it's honestly hard to pass up. If any of the National Camera Exchanges in Minnesota has a used 60D in acceptable or better condition for less than what B&H is selling it by at least $200 then NCE atw. The $900 budget extension from <$800 is to allow for honestly something I'm starting to think might be perhaps a better idea, of course do what I can afford first then acquire when possible.

[bob345]

sigma 18-35 1.8.

[handymanshandle]

sigma 18-35 1.8.

and the nifty fifty 

[lazydog]

I think you'd be better off with a 70D. While the 60D is a very good mid-range DSLR, you might find yourself looking for more features once you get a hold of using your camera. If it's 2013 or 2014, I would recommend getting the 60D, but since you have newer options, I'd say go with them.

 

As for your lens question. it would depend on your shooting styles, I guess. The Sigma would be great since it's a zoom lens, although you might find is pretty short most of the time. The Canon 50mm on the other hand, would be a good lens, maybe for portraits and stuff, but then, you'll be fixed in one focal length, which has advantages and disadvantages.For one, you will be able to enhance your skill in composing your shot by using your feet to adjust, rather than relying on the zoom function of the lens. Although, you might find yourself stepping way back when doing some medium-wide shots with the 50mm.

 

The 18-135, while only having a maximum aperture of f/3.5, would still be a great option to explore your photography as you are still in the stage of testing things out. With that focal range, you can find out where you tend to take most of your shots--are most of your shots below 20mm? in the range of 24-70mm? or you always try and reach for the 135mm focal length? this can give you a better idea on what lens to buy next if you ever plan to upgrade from the kit lens.

[handymanshandle]

snip

 

I know, that the 70D is a better option than the 60D it does offer some more things that the 60D doesn't and it has a slightly better sensor but honestly I can't justify spending two or possibly three times more than what I'm paying for a 60D body. I suspect that in the next couple months to year Canon will refresh the 70D either with a 80D or 70D Mk2 (Most likely the 80D, I suspect that'll probably be the same as the 70D except with a better screen, new CPU and at least a 24mp sensor.) I think I could justify extending the lens budget to about $925. It just means I either live with a 50mm lens for a while or I wait until I can buy it all at once. 

[ShadowCaptain]

get the 18-35 and forget the 50

 

since the 50 on APSC is an 80mm its quite limited outside of portrait use and honestly the 18-35 will be just as fast and sharp and as good in low light as the 50 but give you a much nicer range (since its like 28.8mm to 56mm)

[lazydog]

I know, that the 70D is a better option than the 60D it does offer some more things that the 60D doesn't and it has a slightly better sensor but honestly I can't justify spending two or possibly three times more than what I'm paying for a 60D body. I suspect that in the next couple months to year Canon will refresh the 70D either with a 80D or 70D Mk2 (Most likely the 80D, I suspect that'll probably be the same as the 70D except with a better screen, new CPU and at least a 24mp sensor.) I think I could justify extending the lens budget to about $925. It just means I either live with a 50mm lens for a while or I wait until I can buy it all at once. 

Well, that said, why not try and check out the 17-50mm range of lenses? Canon, Sigma, and Tamron has them. All of which has a maximum and fixed aperture of f/2.8 all throughout the focal range. They are around $400-$500 (except for the Canon w/c costs more). Many upgrade to these lenses as a replacement for their kit lens. Although take note that these are made for crop body cameras, so if you are planning to go full frame soon, remember that you can't use them on full frame cameras.