35mm SLR's - Suggestions?

[BeepBeep2]

Hey guys, maybe you might remember me but a long while back I was part of the Picture a Day thread...around page 45-50

I was 13-14 back then

Anyway, I'm taking Photo 1 in my sophomore year of high school and were focusing on B&W 35mm film...all year.

While I'll be rolling, processing, enlarging my own film into prints, I don't want to deal with the simple point and shoot cams my school has to offer for this class.

...and I want to experiment some.

I've only got a budget about $250, so I'll need to find a used body+lens and preferably a very flexible telephoto lens for as cheap as possible.

I've been looking at Canon SLR's at Amazon.com because I'll be able to use EF lenses on an EF-S mount when I hope to buy an EOS 70D at the end of this year.

Got any input?

Thanks, as always,
Beeps.

[lkiller123]

Don't know much about film cameras. But heres one for you if you want to have a nicer body. 250 bucks can get you helluva film body.

Here you go
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-1N-35m...ht_3405wt_1139

If you want to invest on glass, then its a whole different story.

Damn, I wish I have a photography class like yours...

[lkiller123]

By the way, I recommend you to go the Nikon way if you are going to invest on the glasses with the film body.

The EF range was created in the 80s while the F mount is introduced in the late 50s. You will be able to have a more selection of body instead of limiting yourself into the EF range.

[BeepBeep2]

I'd rather go with an entry level body (I'm strapped for cash, and most likely won't do much film after this)...to find some semi-decent lenses with as little $$ as possible.

Was looking at this body used ($40?):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used


Wide Angle:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...F_28_80mm.html

Telephoto:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm...5416131&sr=1-2

EDIT:
Please keep in mind my only working camera right now is a 7mp Fujifilm S5700 (excluding my Kodak 35mm P&S)...and it sucks.

EDIT 2:
Also, I like to shoot everything from macro to sports images and birds...to landscapes. Even though the glass I picked out above might not be all that great(?) It would let me go the full range of focal lengths.

I also prefer Canon DSLR's to Nikon, due to the fact that in their entry-level bodies such as the T2i and D3100, Canon seems to win in noise at high iso. (Though I do realize the T2i is slightly more expensive...)

[lkiller123]

Buying used bodies that are OLD on Amazon is probably not a good idea. Hunt around Craigslist or eBay; some people will literally give them away.

On the lenses, try to get something that you might able to use on your future DSLR. Get something like the Nifty Fifty.
The build quality sucks, but you will be surprised by its optics. And you can also use that as a Portrait lens on the DSLR.

Forget about telephotos at your budget, they are a waste of money.

[BeepBeep2]

I've already got a Canon 50mm f/1.8 I can borrow any time
Class started yesterday, I'm in a pinch tbh.

Looking at that telephoto lens I picked, I took a peek at samples on amazon and I didn't find them all that bad...but I've never worked with a DSLR before.

Both lenses I'm looking at are EF, they will fit into an EF-S mount...

[lkiller123]

I've already got a Canon 50mm f/1.8 I can borrow any time
Class started yesterday, I'm in a pinch tbh.

Looking at that telephoto lens I picked, I took a peek at samples on amazon and I didn't find them all that bad...but I've never worked with a DSLR before.

Both lenses I'm looking at are EF, they will fit into an EF-S mount...

Yeah the EF can fit onto EF-S, but compatibility is not the main question here. On the Tamron, the 28-80mm range will pretty much be useless on an APS-C format, rendering a 45-128mm of 35mm range.


The sample images of the 75-300mm is really damn soft. My P&S H10 takes way sharper images.

If you already have the f/1.8 to borrow, then save us the $210 and spend them on a 70-200f/4 in the future.

Forgot to ask; what sort of pictures are you looking forward to take?

[xxrabid93]

Ooh, i can help!...sorta. lkiller originally recommended the Canon EOS 1n. I second that, because i have one (borrowed from my neighbor)! I am now in Photo 2 this semester at my school, but last semester i had Photo 1. It was all B&W. I used the EOS 1n last semester, and am using it this semester for color 35mm photo. I know the 1n is a bit expensive, but if you want to see some of the photos it can take, here is my album of some of my photo 1 stuff: http://s929.photobucket.com/albums/a...d93/Photo%201/. They are scanned in, so some might be a little crooked/scratched/etc. All photos were shot with a 28-105mm lens. I have loved using film, as i love being able to develop and tweak all my own stuff. BUT, if you just want to take film as a gateway to digital, then maybe you do want to consider cheaper bodies.

[lkiller123]

Honestly a picture is 90% of photographer and 10% the gear. Hell I am just shooting with a P&S right now.
I like your city photos.

BUT you are right on your last statement. He should get something cheap and save up for glass.

[xxrabid93]

Honestly a picture is 90% of photographer and 10% the gear. Hell I am just shooting with a P&S right now.
I like your city photos.

BUT you are right on your last statement. He should get something cheap and save up for glass.

I do agree with that (mostly photographer that affects the pic), but at the same time, good gear never hurts.

I'm glad you like some of the pics. For Photo 1 we took a fieldtrip to Downtown Chicago; Millenium Park, Navy Pier, a boat trip on the river and into the lake. It was really fun, and the day was beautiful!

Yeah, i would say glass is much more important too. When you go digital, get a good body, but put more $ into glass.

[BeepBeep2]

Yeah the EF can fit onto EF-S, but compatibility is not the main question here. On the Tamron, the 28-80mm range will pretty much be useless on an APS-C format, rendering a 45-128mm of 35mm range.


The sample images of the 75-300mm is really damn soft. My P&S H10 takes way sharper images.

If you already have the f/1.8 to borrow, then save us the $210 and spend them on a 70-200f/4 in the future.

Forgot to ask; what sort of pictures are you looking forward to take?

200 is not going to be enough

I do a lot of small wildlife such as birds, dragonflies, butterflies...most of the time you can't get close enough...

Thanks for the info on the Tamron lens.

[uOpt]

You can have a film rebel for 10 bucks or so.

Get that and spend $240 on a lens.

[BeepBeep2]

Do you guys have opinions on used lenses? I'm worried about fungus/scratches but I could save $70 here...

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM for $139 used on B&H Photo

Item condition is "9+"

9+ Shows little or no signs of wear

I'd also possibly be able to borrow my grandmother's AE1, though it needs batteries.

Also - when I do make a DSLR purchase it will most likely be a kit w/ 18-55mm lens...of course that would leave a small gap between the two lenses...but I could pick up the Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 for the film body as well...

[uOpt]

It's the worst lens Canon ever made.

Why in the world would you go through the trouble of getting a film camera and then put a better soap bubble in front of it?

[lkiller123]

If it is from BH, then you shouldn't worry much. You can always return it.

[BeepBeep2]

It's the worst lens Canon ever made.

Why in the world would you go through the trouble of getting a film camera and then put a better soap bubble in front of it?

Are you sure you haven't mistaken the USM model for the non USM?

Basically the $70 Tamron is a replacement for the kit lenses that would have come with the bodies in kits, and this thing is $140...of course if I had the $$$ I'd pay for the 75-300 DO IS

[lkiller123]

Are you sure you haven't mistaken the USM model for the non USM?

Basically the $70 Tamron is a replacement for the kit lenses that would have come with the bodies in kits, and this thing is $140...of course if I had the $$$ I'd pay for the 75-300 DO IS

Save your money and skip the Tamron. As I said just use the 50mm f/1.8.

If you really need a zoom then this will do for you.

Else, save up the money and invest on something better in the future.

[BeepBeep2]

Save your money and skip the Tamron. As I said just use the 50mm f/1.8.

If you really need a zoom then this will do for you.

Else, save up the money and invest on something better in the future.

Yeah, no doubt the 50mm f/1.8 will be great for some things. ...though I need a wide angle lens, as wide as I can get for landscape photo's. As stupid as I may sound when I say this, I really need something upwards of 200mm+ and something as low as 28mm. I have felt limited by my S700's 28-280mm equiv. range demonstrated by these, this car (though through a fence) (this is over a half crop, original is 280mm equiv) and this 28mm equiv shot in the past.

As sucky as the Tamron 28-80 and Canon 70-300 may be, I will not be able to take the type of pics I want (for a very long time) without them. I won't be spending $500 on a lens, it just can't happen. I can deal with chromatic abberation in software better than I can noise, and as far as pics being soft I'd rather have them noise free.

[lkiller123]

If you feel like that is the range for you, then go for it.

As far as noise goes, you won't have to worry since it only depends on the type of film used.
Since you will probably be using ISO100 films, you will need a nice tripod. You might need to put some money onto that category..

[1ke]

Why not use a cheap 50mm and then use software to stitch pictures into a wide angle shot? Its not ideal but works well. That could cut down costs of buying a wide angle lens (all of which are expensive if you want a good one). Also why not crop for the telephoto effect on a 60D? 18 megapixel is a whole lot of working space for cropping and enlargement. You can mimic telephotos with a crop and adjust the depth of field in photoshop buy applying blur filters onto different layers.