Timeline for Should I buy a camera with kit lens, or body plus lens separately?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2013 at 18:44 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Jun 16, 2013 at 14:33 | comment | added | Michael Nielsen | tamron. Most my lenses are from Ebay, and my Camera is also 2nd hand. it works fine. | |
| Jun 16, 2013 at 13:00 | comment | added | Michael C | $300 for the Tamron or Sigma? | |
| Jun 16, 2013 at 12:59 | comment | added | Michael C | At that price it would be tempting. I don't trust most e-bay sellers for photo gear. I rarely buy lenses from anyone without a 30-day no-questions-asked return policy. That would be especially the case with Tamron, who has a reputation of widely varying QC from lens to lens. My Tamron 17-50 is extremely sharp, but not all of them are. I have bought refurbished lenses direct from Canon U.S.A. when the savings were significant enough. | |
| Jun 16, 2013 at 12:48 | comment | added | Michael Nielsen | 300$ on ebay, and 150$ for the 55-250, 450$ total. Tamron 70-300 (the new good one, not the old crappy one that I hope for him he is not buying) is 450$. | |
| Jun 16, 2013 at 10:40 | comment | added | Michael C | The problem with the 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses is that they are out of his stated budget unless he is willing to give up even the 55-250. My Tamron 17-50 is probably the biggest bang for the buck I've ever gotten on a lens (unless the 70-200 f/2.8 II), but it is $500. Same thing with the EF 50mm f/1.4 over the nifty fifty: you're adding $250 to the price which is more than the difference between the Tamron 70-300 and the Canon 55-250, at least here in the U.S. The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II is significantly improved over the earlier non IS versions (my EF-S 18-55 II was horrible optically). | |
| Jun 16, 2013 at 10:26 | history | answered | Michael Nielsen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |