I'm a little bit more serious about picking up:

1x Canon 6D Camera
1x Canon 24-105MM lens kit ($2400 camera + this lens bundled together)
1x Canon EF 70-300MM USM Lens ($450)
1x Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II Lens ($120)

The total comes to $2970 + taxes.

I can afford this now, but I'm waiting on selling some electronics that I really don't use to make up for half the cost of the camera purchase.

As a beginner who is enjoying photography, would this investment be a bad idea? Are there lens choices that are bad here? Should I consider any other lenses? Should I wait on a different camera body? Should I strongly consider saving cash? (I get the whole "if you're new, work your way up" argument, but I feel like that's somewhat of a bad argument).

Give me some input. Thanks.

6d is a nice first camera mate

i'd start with the 3 important primes 35 f2 50 1.4 and 85 1.8

they will give you discipline and force you to think about your composition

looks good, but would leave this off; 1x Canon EF 70-300MM USM Lens ($450)
if you do want a tele zoom, rather look at a 3rd party manufacturer for a better lens at a similar price range, sigma or tamron

that said I would still go for a cheaper body and the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens



I was also thinking go for the 2 primes, 35(or 24) and 50mm
but for a beginner that doesn't know what he will be shooting most a zoom would be a lot easier

This post was edited by jayandnix on Jun 16 2013 05:09am

Why the 35 and 85? And why the 1.8 choice over the 1.4? I was reading that the 1.4 is generally a better choice, and it's 4x cheaper!! Which is huge.

I was thinking my lens choices were good since that gives me a good zoom lens, a good all-around take-it-everywhere lens (24-105), and the 50mm lens just because it's very useful. But I'm not sure what else I'd want in terms of lenses outside of my selections, and why.



I've heard the 24-70 gets compared with the 24-105 a fair bit. I'm not quite sure how significant the difference is in practice. It sounds almost like I'd have to be professional to want to have both of those lenses, otherwise one would basically be the same as the other as an amateur enthusiast?

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jun 16 2013 05:10am

35mm is kind of like the wide sweet spot for walking around. Wide enough not to distort so much and wide enough for some portraits. Perfect street lens IMO.

85 is just beautiful for portraits. Great compression and DOF at that length.

The 50 1.4 is of a better build quality and focuses faster and more accurately. That's what you pay for. Is it 4x the lens? I'd say so.

Why is the 50mm useful for you? It's actually a really hard lens to use because it's so standard in focal length, so using perspective to get a great shot is trickier than the others.

Downside to primes is that you always have to change if you want something different. But it depends what you want to do with it!

I think if you do get the 24-105 the little 50 will hardly get used.

And that 70-300 is pretty cheap in quality, would be a shame to sit it on your nice 6d

Just buy the 6d, start from full frame, don't fuck around with 1/2 frame. It's not like it's a waste of money. If it's not something you like the resale value will be okay. But you will love the shit out of it.




I honestly think it will help a beginner more to compose with their feet rather than with their wrist.



This post was edited by lithfkn on Jun 16 2013 07:53am

obv the 1.4 is better but does cost so much more, for the majority of ppl (hobbyist/enthusiasts) the 1.8 is perfect
also agree wit Lith on the 50mm, while it is a brilliant lens it is somewhat of a difficult lens to use (on a cropped body it makes a "great" portrait lens, on ff its seems stuck between, not normally wide enough indoors or for landscapes, and not long enough for portraits/headshots)
I would rather go with a 24/35mm on ff



totally agree, I learnt a lot because of my 50mm in the beginning
but to start off with 3of them is a bit hard





haha love that

This post was edited by jayandnix on Jun 16 2013 09:36am

Okay. I'm stepping back a notch and I have this down:

- Canon 6D with 24-105mm lens ($2399.99 + tax)

So if I add 2 lenses to the list, which should they be and why. I need to price it out, and the price needs to make sense.

For practical every-day things, I know I will want a good zoom lens. I know I will want a wide-angle lens. I know I'll want a lens for good portraits/etc. And I'll want to be able to take some macro shots.

For the sake of photography and having fun with a camera, I know there's other suggestions. I'm trying to balance a practically-grounded purchasing approach with an artistically-grounded purchasing approach... and between these two, I think the lens choices differ a little bit.

So, I really need a detailed explanation of why any lens is worth the cash and why I should get it right off the bat. It's not a matter of learning, it's a matter of the lens filling a spot that is really important.

Thanks for the help! I am doing my own googling and researching anything I don't understand from what has been told to me so far. But more help is appreciated *a lot*. Thanks.

You will have a 24-105, it covers pretty much everything you need. 24mm is wide and 105 is long. You'll be fucked when you first look through that viewfinder @ 24mm, believe me.

I can't really tell you what you need mate because, let's be frank, you have no idea what you are doing or what that above lens/camera is even capable of.

It's why I suggest primes to learn with

This post was edited by lithfkn on Jun 16 2013 01:47pm

That's true, I don't know what I'm doing

I guess if I get it, I'll get the 24-105mm and then from there I'll decide.

I would start with just the barebones camera and pick up other lenses, but the 24-105mm looks great, and it's regularly a $1400 lens and is bundled basically at $700 instead.

Just get it mate, you won't know yourself when you do and you can't go wrong with that kit.