Best Option for amature travel photography

[rgomez1]

Hi guys,

I'm new to this forum and to photography too. I'm looking at buying a gift for my girlfriend who owns a Canon 1000D aka Rebel XS with the standard kit lens of 18-55mm.

Our photography mostly consists of selfies/portraits with backgrounds, landscapes and sunsets, sunrises shot with a Nikon point & shoot

I would like to extend our photography to shooting nature objects (berry's, flowers, birds and small things you see on a typical trek) as well as a few portraits and if possible some macro shots too.

My budget is around 300 USD and I would like quality sharp pictures in bright light and as sharp as possible in darker places (parties, dinner, etc)

From my research, I feel the 24mm F2/8 STM pancake canon lens will be suitable for selfies, landscapes, portraits with backgrounds, flowers/berry's, sunsets as well as low light photography in restaurants making it very flexible for my needs and small to carry around.

I also like the portrait shots of the 'nifty fifty' but I think the 24mm on a crop sensor can do the shot pretty well especially if I move closer to the subject. I know that the bokeh and DOF is not as good compared to the F1.8 but considering that I want the background in most of my shots, I think its something I can live with. However I do like the reversed macro shots of the 50mm but taking shots does not seem feasible without a tripod.

Other lenses I'm looking at are the canon 70-300mm AF Di LD Macro or the Tamron SP AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD birds/animals that are upto 300 meters.

However, she recently threw a curveball at me talking about buying a Longzoom camera for our trips as a replacement to our broken point & shoot...now I hadn't heard about longzooms and from what I gather they are pretty good quality at same focal lengths while also giving me telephoto and macro.

I am now wondering if its worth buying lenses for such an old camera or should I go with the latest longzoom considering there will be no need for more lenses but how does a longzoom quality compare to a old dslr?

Any help will be appreciated

 

[ApfelKuchen]

If by "long zoom" you mean cameras like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000... It can be a great solution - I suggested it to my business partner (a travel writer/photographer), and she's been totally delighted. Not everyone wants to be bothered with changing lenses or needs full-frame DSLR quality. Still, its capabilities and quality greatly exceed the typical travel point-and-shoot.

Every camera comes with compromises. It has a smaller imaging sensor than DSLRs, and no one zoom lens can deliver all the focal lengths, qualities (or quality) available for an interchangeable lens camera. In other words, it's highly versatile, but not as versatile as interchangeable lens cameras. But if it's easy to use and covers 99% of what you want to do, you may find that ease of use/fewer shots missed by having the wrong lens on the camera turns out to be more important than having the ultimate in flexibility. Or not. It's also not a small camera, but certainly more compact than most DSLRs.

 

[rgomez1]

If by "long zoom" you mean cameras like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000... It can be a great solution - I suggested it to my business partner (a travel writer/photographer), and she's been totally delighted. Not everyone wants to be bothered with changing lenses or needs full-frame DSLR quality. Still, its capabilities and quality greatly exceed the typical travel point-and-shoot.

Every camera comes with compromises. It has a smaller imaging sensor than DSLRs, and no one zoom lens can deliver all the focal lengths, qualities (or quality) available for an interchangeable lens camera. In other words, it's highly versatile, but not as versatile as interchangeable lens cameras. But if it's easy to use and covers 99% of what you want to do, you may find that ease of use/fewer shots missed by having the wrong lens on the camera turns out to be more important than having the ultimate in flexibility. Or not. It's also not a small camera, but certainly more compact than most DSLRs.

[doublepost=1462260585][/doublepost]More like the Canon Powershot SX60 HS which falls into my budget. I would say 90% of our photography involves landscapes and closer objects which makes me lean towards lenses for DSLR. A small body to carry would be nice but I dont think thats gonna be possible even with the bridge camera.
[doublepost=1462262467][/doublepost]I am getting a used Tamron 70-300mm VC 4-5.6 and a 24mm Pancake in my budget.

 

[TheDrift-]

Well it seems you want a lens that can do just about everything at a bargain price. A lot of people would consider buying multiple lenses to cover all those areas..

...if you want just one to do as much as possible the cannon 24 105L is pretty much a jack of all trades and goes for used around your budget..

Obviously its a bit slower that the 2.8 (maybe you could use some flash in lower light?), but you do gain Image stabilisation in return.

Its not a macro but it does have quite a decent maximum magnification so should be good for flowers and berries....its bit limited on the long end for birds etc.

You will have all the typical portrait focal length covered and 105 at f4 you can get bokeh if you want it..

 

[Apple fanboy]

[doublepost=1462260585][/doublepost]More like the Canon Powershot SX60 HS which falls into my budget. I would say 90% of our photography involves landscapes and closer objects which makes me lean towards lenses for DSLR. A small body to carry would be nice but I dont think thats gonna be possible even with the bridge camera.
[doublepost=1462262467][/doublepost]I am getting a used Tamron 70-300mm VC 4-5.6 and a 24mm Pancake in my budget.

My Dad has one of those Panasonic LUMIX all in one super zooms.
The image quality isn't too bad, but at the long end its almost unusable.
But IQ will depend very much on what you think is acceptable and what you intend to do with your pictures.
My Nikon 70-300 is a great lens which isn't too big or heavy compared to some of my kit.
I'd assume the Tamron would be comparable, and easily carried compared to say my 200-500 or even 70-209 2.8.
Buying used (nearly all my kit was) is a no brainer to as most gets little use.

 

[ChrisA]

I've owned SLRs for many years, going back to the Nikon F2. I'm a big fan of them but I also own a smaller camera and an iPhone. Today the way I look at the purpose of an SLR is that it is the camera to take when my main purpose or job is photography. But if I'm doping something else and want a picture I use the smaller camera. That is I'm unlikely to have my SLR with me if I am doing normal activities.

About that 28mm lens. Yes you can walk forward and fram just a person's face but remember that perspective is determined SOLELY by camera to subject distance. The focal length determines the angle of view. Do you really want such a close-in perspective on your single person portraits? On a crop frame body a 50mm is a mild telephoto and about right for that use. On a full frame camera I like the 85mm lens

If you understand about perspective then you can see how many times zooms are misused. They think that they no longer have to walk back or forward. No. the distance gives you there "look" of the shot to the perspective and the zoom ring controls what is included in the frame. A zoom allows you to choose these two thing independently.

 

[rgomez1]

I'm not really looking for one lens that can do it all. I understand every lens and camera comes with a compromise.

The reason i'm leaning towards the 24mm, 50mm and a cheap telephoto is this:

1) 24mm 2.8 pancake is a prime lens which makes the DSLR portable and covers a wide range from landscape, selfies, objects, etc. I feel that the wide angle and F2.8 will be useful for indoor shots for restaurants, bars, etc which covers 90% of our shots.

2) 50mm- Reverse macro

3) A 200-300mm telephoto to keep in the car while traveling for shots of the moon, sunsets and rare shots of birds.

As you can guess, I'm looking for sharp everyday photos and I don't mind not so great wildlife shots but more importantly I would like to capture closeup of the moon and sunsets.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Seems you were just looking for people to agree with you. Next time, say that, so everyone else doesn't waste their time.

All I'll add is... if your goal is shots of the moon and macro photography - I hope you keep a good tripod and a remote shutter release in the car along with that telephoto.

 

[rgomez1]

Seems you were just looking for people to agree with you. Next time, say that, so everyone else doesn't waste their time.

All I'll add is... if your goal is shots of the moon and macro photography - I hope you keep a good tripod and a remote shutter release in the car along with that telephoto.

[doublepost=1462350776][/doublepost]
Sorry if its come across like that. I'm not looking for people to agree with me but merely stating my requirements and the equipment available that I can afford.

I am in a bind over the bridge cameras. So let me ask a few questions.

1) Can a cheaper 250-300$ bridge camera give me an equal quality compared to a 24mm prime lens on an eos 1000D?

2) Can a 24mm prime lens on a canon 1000D be used for selfies and as a general purpose lens?

Thanks

 

[ApfelKuchen]

1) No. The bridge camera delivers versatility and speed at the cost of quality - fewer shots missed because you had the "wrong" lens on the camera, or were in the midst of changing lenses. Also, less kit to carry around.

2) Yes. That's a 36mm-equivalent on your camera. I used a 35mm f 2.0 on my Nikon F (who knew "F" stood for "film"?) as a general-purpose lens for many years. It wasn't fabulous, though, and "selfie" hadn't entered the vocabulary. I often wished that 35mm was a 28mm, and I also used my 55mm macro as a "normal." When I take selfies with my good camera these days (a fully-articulated LCD display is a really useful thing), I find I'm usually racking my zoom to 28mm equivalent. Still, the front cameras on iPhones have tended to be in the 35mm-equivalent range.

 

[rgomez1]

Thanks. That helps me make my decision.