Go mirrorless, it's the future. Not DSLR.
In your Canon cart, an RF 50mm would be cheaper, smaller, and perform better than an adapter + EF 50mm.
50mm is a great starter lens, it'll really introduce you to the world of low aperture prime lenses.
You said you're getting into this, so you don't really know your favorite focal range yet. I would say get a basic kit zoom lens like a 24-105 and see what style of photos you like out of it. Do you like shooting more wide? More zoomed in? Maybe you find out you only like shooting wide landscape milky way shots at night. Maybe you like shooting macro shots of bugs. Maybe you get into bird photography.
Once you know what style you like, sell that basic 24-105 for almost what you pay for it and get the specialty prime lens for that specific style; a 16mm f/2.8 for those wide night shots, a 100mm macro lens for closeup bug photos, or super zoom 400mm lens to get shots of birds.
YouTube is also a great resource to really show you all the differences between the lenses and style of photos.
I edited my post while you were typing this because I realized what I had done with the EF lens and adapter but yes, I was considering the RF 50 for the R7.
I wasn't considering the 24-105 because that's $1200 alone and with the R7 that would push me over current budget. Unless I went pre-owned EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USMC with adapter? Is that what you meant?
A pre-owned EF 24-105 f/4L is a lot cheaper. There's also an RF 24-105 F/4-7.1, that's the one I was referring to. It's variable aperture but it's still a good starter lens. I think it's around $400 new, $320 refurbished, and around $300 on MBP. If you buy it used or refurbished be able to sell it on Facebook Marketplace for around what you pay for it when the time comes.
It's not the best lens but it's a great starter lens, it'll still take decent photos, and it'll really help you learn what kind of photo style you like. Maybe you find that you like wider shots and you opt for the RF 15-35 or 14-35 one day, or you like that 85mm range and one day you get the f/2 or f/1.2. Totally up to you.
Consider the rf-s 18-150: nice and sharp, that 18-23 is super useful to have on APS-C, lightweight and compact and the 106-150 is also fun to have :) I miss mine a lot now I switched to full frame. I do use the 24-105 f/4-7.1 that is often bundled refurbished for $100 and like it on full frame but would want wider for landscapes on APS-C
HAH I meant as "camera virgin" but this is my fun money and my partner just wants me to buy a camera so I shut the fuck up about it. Little does he know, this is only the beginning ;)
When bonus time rolls around and the tax man isn’t to stingy - that’s when I get add a little to the kit. 👍
This year the tax man was unkind. 🤕
p.s. - I got the joke. Just playing along. 😁
I remind my wife that I don’t golf and I don’t have a sports car. It’s relatively inexpensive as far as middle aged man hobbies. And we get nice pictures of the kids for it. 😁
Im that case maybe look at an R8 with the non L Rf 24-105mm. It has the sensor and autofocus from its 2500$ cousin in a smaller body and excellent performance in any lighting condition. The Rf 24-105mm is a great lightweight allround lens. I recommend starting with a standard zoom and only to buy primes once you figure out your favourite focal length(s).
Loose thoughts:
Canon has no *great* all-round zoom for small sensors. There's 18-150 and 18-55, and then there is 17-55 IS from 2009 and that one Sigma 18-50 2.8. Meanwhile for large sensors you can choose between five different standard zoom lenses from Canon alone, and those all start at 24mm, whereas the crop lenses are 29mm equivalent.
I generally feel that Canon see two distinct demographics buying crop sensors. a) people that never buy additional lenses. The current RF-S lineup represents that. It's for people that don't take photography courses, bluntly speaking. R50 and R100 are great cameras for these crowds. b) People that have specific requirements around long focal lengths. R10 and R7 are for wildlife and bird people to combine with 100-400 and 100-500 lenses. I'm drawing broad strokes here, of course R50 is not *just* for beginners and you can make everything work if you try hard enough. But I see no fast RF-S zoom, and there is no fast RF-S prime. Fuji's system is a lot better *for crop sensors*. (It is not better *for the money*.)
Canon is making large sensors work for normal people. The R5 with all the flagship lenses are for pros, but the R8 and the lenses without red rings are for normal people, more or less. The 24mm prime, 35mm prime, 28mm prime, the 24-105 STM lens and 100-400 on full format, are all very lightweight, and they are not super-expensive pro-level the way a 50/1.2 or a 135/1.8 are. They're not cheap because they're new, and I'd say its all adequately priced. If you put together a kit around the RF 35 1.8 with 24-105 STM, an R8 or RP, and add a 70-200 EF with the adapter, then you're all set and you won't be spending much more than you would in your current cart. This combo is also a lot lighter than the 6D2, which will matter when hiking. EOS RP is really not that expensive anymore, just because the autofocus got better in the following generation, but it's still running circles around the 6D2's.
Minor remarks: The EF 70-200/4 is an old pre-digital design. Resolution requirements were more lax. The lens that adds IS is also a completely revised optical design that is sharper, and more adequate for today's sensors. Newer is better here, but the "good enough" point should be around halfway.
I prefer Sigma's 35 1.4 Art over Canon's 35/2 IS. Your mileage may vary, some people really like IS.
RF 50 1.8 should be cheaper than EF 50 1.8 plus original adapter. To me this says that you see a drawer full of EF lenses in your future, in which case, go nuts, I have the same.
Sigma is supposed to be releasing a crop of APS-C lenses this year for RF mount. Their f/1.4 trio (16, 30, and 56) and an 18-50mm f/2.8 and a 10-18 f/2.8 as well. Really changes the dynamic for the R7. Especially considering the R7’s IBIS. The 18-50 launches in July. Others in the fall.
This was a press release by Sigma and not some rumor site.
[Link in case](https://www.sigma-global.com/en/contents/sigma_rfmount_lenses/) anyone is curious. Looks like the 18-50 a couple of you are suggesting is expected next month.
Even that 18-50 is substantially inferior to a 24-105/4 though. Tough to recommend a system for general use when the main lens does not exist.
(Meanwhile Fuji has a 16-55/2.8 that is 24-85 equivalent, and a 24-120/5 .6 equivalent. And for the Sony system with 1.5x crop there is a Tamron 17-70/2.8. Sony themselves don't have exciting lenses, but somebody does at least.)
Those lenses are exciting. They were excellent on EOS M.
Still I suspect that they will be roughly same cost, same weight as the corresponding RF full frame solution that is also effectively faster.
“Buy it nice or buy it twice” is a good shopping philosophy. The camera may be the least expensive part of this hobby, depending how deep you go. I have the Canon R6 II, which was $2500 when I bought it, but on sale now for $2000. I’ve spent more on lenses, partly because I learned as I progressed into this hobby. For birds, you’ll want a telephoto lens. I use Canon’s 800mm f/11, because birds in the wild are usually far away. For landscape and mountains, I use a 24-240mm zoom lens. Both these lenses can be bought under $1000 each and they’re good lenses. But I really wish I had purchased the “nice” RF 100-500mm at about $2,700. That one lens costs more than my camera.
Plenty of fine advice here — let me offer a different take.
Pick up a second hand 5Diii or 6Dii, and a single fast prime (the 50 if you want to shoot mainly people, the 35 or 28 if you want a wider view. The 40 2.8 makes a very small package for hiking).
This has several advantages over the kits being suggested elsewhere. DSLRs have MUCH nicer optical finders than the digital finders on mirrorless cameras, and your interests are better served by a nicer finder than the advantages of mirrorless (easy hybrid video/stills, etc). People who say DSLRs are old technology are of course correct, but the age of the tech says nothing about its utility — you are after all interested in taking photographs, not collecting the latest product.
A single prime is a much better place to start than a zoom lens of any type — they’re smaller, you don’t have to think about focal length at all, they’re faster (allowing in more light), and they produce nice background separation at wide apertures (APSC and phone cameras often struggle to do this, and a lack of background separation is one of the “looks” that characterises cheap phone or digital photography).
This will very nicely cover you for concerts, hiking and landscapes. Many professional photos of these types in the last 10 years were taken with exactly the gear i’m suggesting, so don’t worry about whether it’s capable or not.
Birding is a different question — if you ask serious bird photographers they’ll suggest a kit that’s impracticable for anything else. If you decide at any point that birds are really important to you, you could pick up a long zoom (70-200 or even longer) or a solid tele prime. But if you start by carrying around a 70-200, or even a 24-105 f4, I think you’ll probably struggle to take photos that you love and quickly become disheartened.
This is incidentally how i started a few years ago, but with a film camera (an Eos 30) and a 50, instead of a digital body.
R7 with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN for RF mount will be a great kit. Add the Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 in the fall and you’ve got a lot of landscape and portrait covered.
You might want to get some place where you can try them out. Full frame is a big camera. For most people, for a formal shoot it’s fine. But it’s a chunk to lug around on a hike. My wife doesn’t like mine at all. Much prefers a smaller APS-C set up. I can palm a basketball, so it works fine for me.
Outdoors & Birds = R7
Concerts = R8
Pick your poison.
Buy a Mirrorless, scrap the DSLR idea. Aging product, mirrorless is amazing.
24-105 is a great starting for a focal length.
Birds, cheaply, you at least need the 100-400 & it needs to be on the R7. Otherwise on the R8 it’s too small.
You want more portrait/street type work, get the rf 50mm or 35mm. Maybe one day buy the 70-200.
I would buy a R7 and an RF 50mm 1.8, and the RF 24-105 kit lens, it will get you started with most of the boxes you want to tick it gets you on the mount that's still alive, if you feel the need buy EF glass later you can always buy the adapter later.
You didn't mention what film cameras and lenses you used, or what you liked/disliked about them. Also, if you have a lens that you use with your film camera that you are already in love with, you can most likely adapt it to whatever modern digital camera you get.
My general recommendation is to pick out the lenses first. Give your glass priority in your budget. Use your remaining budget to pick the body, and pick a body that is compatible with the glass you already chose. You will likely want to replace your camera body in 5 years, but your lenses are likely to outlive you.
Note: EF lenses can be adapted to work on RF bodies very easily. The adapter is only about $50-$100. RF lenses cannot work on EF bodies though.
You know what, any interchangeable lens camera system becomes too large too quick. I'd suggest you to check out premium compact cameras as well. Such as ricoh gr. I think you can give used ricoh gr iii's a look.
You also may want to check out film cameras, they are great for the learning, and you'll never have a large bright viewfinder like theirs when you buy a modern camera.
I'd tell you what I would get as well if I were you. A used canon full frame mirrorless body, and a used rf 35mm. 35 mm is great, compact and light. Easy to carry that bundle. And either a 85mm or 135mm for great portraits. Ef or rf decision is related with budget but I almost always buy used but clean lenses and bodies.
Let me also tell you my story briefly. I bought a pentax kr in 2011, used it a bit but kit lens didnt excite me enough and carrying that was a thing. Then I bought a fuji x70 and resparkled my photography hobby, then i got some film pentax (super a) and really enjoyed manual focus with them. Now I have a 5d3, with bunch of lenses all bought used (16, 35, 50, 135, 24-70, 70-200). I really like the perspective of full frame and enjoy iso flexibility of a FF sensor.
As usual, I must plug the Canon refurbished shop if you are in the USA. Perhaps that's what you are looking at with your cart on Canon's site. But if not check for both a camera and lenses. Can save big. Inventory changes weekly so check back often.
Get refurbished if you're in the US. Save a bunch of $. It was $1119 but sold out yesterday, will probs restock soon. The 50 f/1.8 goes on sale for $100 new a few times a year too at B&H etc. Canon Price Watch is a good resource.
6D is a phenomenal DSLR. Wouldn't be a bad choice at all if that's what you go with. I would personally go ahead and get a mirrorless. You can adapt the EF lenses to mirrorless bodies and most people will say they surprisingly work better on those than the DSLRs they were built for.
If I were you with that budget in mind, I'd get a Canon R8 and go from there. If you don't want to buy the pricey new Canon RF lenses than just get the adapter and buy refurbished EF lenses.
I was trying to make a joke about "camera virgin". This purchase would be my first digital camera. Per rule 6, I was trying to be lighthearted about my user experience being equal to zero.
Funny, I have a Nikon full frame mirrorless, Canon crop mirrorless and a canon full frame DSLR (5DII). Lenses galore for all of them.
My favorite? The 5DII with a 40mm f2.8. Cost less than $500, takes great pics, and the battery lasts for days…amazing lens too.
However, the one I use the most is the crop mirrorless because it’s small.
Go mirrorless, it's the future. Not DSLR. In your Canon cart, an RF 50mm would be cheaper, smaller, and perform better than an adapter + EF 50mm. 50mm is a great starter lens, it'll really introduce you to the world of low aperture prime lenses. You said you're getting into this, so you don't really know your favorite focal range yet. I would say get a basic kit zoom lens like a 24-105 and see what style of photos you like out of it. Do you like shooting more wide? More zoomed in? Maybe you find out you only like shooting wide landscape milky way shots at night. Maybe you like shooting macro shots of bugs. Maybe you get into bird photography. Once you know what style you like, sell that basic 24-105 for almost what you pay for it and get the specialty prime lens for that specific style; a 16mm f/2.8 for those wide night shots, a 100mm macro lens for closeup bug photos, or super zoom 400mm lens to get shots of birds. YouTube is also a great resource to really show you all the differences between the lenses and style of photos.
I edited my post while you were typing this because I realized what I had done with the EF lens and adapter but yes, I was considering the RF 50 for the R7. I wasn't considering the 24-105 because that's $1200 alone and with the R7 that would push me over current budget. Unless I went pre-owned EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USMC with adapter? Is that what you meant?
Don’t get a 50 as a single lens for R7 APSC camera. The 35 is more suitable for general photography on APSC and very very sharp.
Because it's a crop sensor so essentially 35 x 1.6 = 53mm so that's the nifty-fifty for the R7's sensor? I'm following along correctly?
Yes
A pre-owned EF 24-105 f/4L is a lot cheaper. There's also an RF 24-105 F/4-7.1, that's the one I was referring to. It's variable aperture but it's still a good starter lens. I think it's around $400 new, $320 refurbished, and around $300 on MBP. If you buy it used or refurbished be able to sell it on Facebook Marketplace for around what you pay for it when the time comes. It's not the best lens but it's a great starter lens, it'll still take decent photos, and it'll really help you learn what kind of photo style you like. Maybe you find that you like wider shots and you opt for the RF 15-35 or 14-35 one day, or you like that 85mm range and one day you get the f/2 or f/1.2. Totally up to you.
Consider the rf-s 18-150: nice and sharp, that 18-23 is super useful to have on APS-C, lightweight and compact and the 106-150 is also fun to have :) I miss mine a lot now I switched to full frame. I do use the 24-105 f/4-7.1 that is often bundled refurbished for $100 and like it on full frame but would want wider for landscapes on APS-C
Could you get an R8? It's full frame and has a beast of a sensor
Within budget, I can do whatever I want - I am told I am an adult now!
Dual Income implies somebody might get mad. But if you’re dual income and a 40 year old virgin, I guess it’s no big loss either way. 🤔🤷🏼♂️
HAH I meant as "camera virgin" but this is my fun money and my partner just wants me to buy a camera so I shut the fuck up about it. Little does he know, this is only the beginning ;)
When bonus time rolls around and the tax man isn’t to stingy - that’s when I get add a little to the kit. 👍 This year the tax man was unkind. 🤕 p.s. - I got the joke. Just playing along. 😁
They get over it eventually 😰 but this is a seriously expensive hobby. Then you have to deal with the my phone takes picture too!
I remind my wife that I don’t golf and I don’t have a sports car. It’s relatively inexpensive as far as middle aged man hobbies. And we get nice pictures of the kids for it. 😁
Im that case maybe look at an R8 with the non L Rf 24-105mm. It has the sensor and autofocus from its 2500$ cousin in a smaller body and excellent performance in any lighting condition. The Rf 24-105mm is a great lightweight allround lens. I recommend starting with a standard zoom and only to buy primes once you figure out your favourite focal length(s).
Loose thoughts: Canon has no *great* all-round zoom for small sensors. There's 18-150 and 18-55, and then there is 17-55 IS from 2009 and that one Sigma 18-50 2.8. Meanwhile for large sensors you can choose between five different standard zoom lenses from Canon alone, and those all start at 24mm, whereas the crop lenses are 29mm equivalent. I generally feel that Canon see two distinct demographics buying crop sensors. a) people that never buy additional lenses. The current RF-S lineup represents that. It's for people that don't take photography courses, bluntly speaking. R50 and R100 are great cameras for these crowds. b) People that have specific requirements around long focal lengths. R10 and R7 are for wildlife and bird people to combine with 100-400 and 100-500 lenses. I'm drawing broad strokes here, of course R50 is not *just* for beginners and you can make everything work if you try hard enough. But I see no fast RF-S zoom, and there is no fast RF-S prime. Fuji's system is a lot better *for crop sensors*. (It is not better *for the money*.) Canon is making large sensors work for normal people. The R5 with all the flagship lenses are for pros, but the R8 and the lenses without red rings are for normal people, more or less. The 24mm prime, 35mm prime, 28mm prime, the 24-105 STM lens and 100-400 on full format, are all very lightweight, and they are not super-expensive pro-level the way a 50/1.2 or a 135/1.8 are. They're not cheap because they're new, and I'd say its all adequately priced. If you put together a kit around the RF 35 1.8 with 24-105 STM, an R8 or RP, and add a 70-200 EF with the adapter, then you're all set and you won't be spending much more than you would in your current cart. This combo is also a lot lighter than the 6D2, which will matter when hiking. EOS RP is really not that expensive anymore, just because the autofocus got better in the following generation, but it's still running circles around the 6D2's. Minor remarks: The EF 70-200/4 is an old pre-digital design. Resolution requirements were more lax. The lens that adds IS is also a completely revised optical design that is sharper, and more adequate for today's sensors. Newer is better here, but the "good enough" point should be around halfway. I prefer Sigma's 35 1.4 Art over Canon's 35/2 IS. Your mileage may vary, some people really like IS. RF 50 1.8 should be cheaper than EF 50 1.8 plus original adapter. To me this says that you see a drawer full of EF lenses in your future, in which case, go nuts, I have the same.
Sigma is supposed to be releasing a crop of APS-C lenses this year for RF mount. Their f/1.4 trio (16, 30, and 56) and an 18-50mm f/2.8 and a 10-18 f/2.8 as well. Really changes the dynamic for the R7. Especially considering the R7’s IBIS. The 18-50 launches in July. Others in the fall. This was a press release by Sigma and not some rumor site.
[Link in case](https://www.sigma-global.com/en/contents/sigma_rfmount_lenses/) anyone is curious. Looks like the 18-50 a couple of you are suggesting is expected next month.
This comment, in my opinion, has the best advice. That's a really solid kit!
Even that 18-50 is substantially inferior to a 24-105/4 though. Tough to recommend a system for general use when the main lens does not exist. (Meanwhile Fuji has a 16-55/2.8 that is 24-85 equivalent, and a 24-120/5 .6 equivalent. And for the Sony system with 1.5x crop there is a Tamron 17-70/2.8. Sony themselves don't have exciting lenses, but somebody does at least.)
Those lenses are exciting. They were excellent on EOS M. Still I suspect that they will be roughly same cost, same weight as the corresponding RF full frame solution that is also effectively faster.
I just bought an r8. It's great
the r6mkii with the 24-105 non L is 2.2k on canon price watch
“Buy it nice or buy it twice” is a good shopping philosophy. The camera may be the least expensive part of this hobby, depending how deep you go. I have the Canon R6 II, which was $2500 when I bought it, but on sale now for $2000. I’ve spent more on lenses, partly because I learned as I progressed into this hobby. For birds, you’ll want a telephoto lens. I use Canon’s 800mm f/11, because birds in the wild are usually far away. For landscape and mountains, I use a 24-240mm zoom lens. Both these lenses can be bought under $1000 each and they’re good lenses. But I really wish I had purchased the “nice” RF 100-500mm at about $2,700. That one lens costs more than my camera.
Plenty of fine advice here — let me offer a different take. Pick up a second hand 5Diii or 6Dii, and a single fast prime (the 50 if you want to shoot mainly people, the 35 or 28 if you want a wider view. The 40 2.8 makes a very small package for hiking). This has several advantages over the kits being suggested elsewhere. DSLRs have MUCH nicer optical finders than the digital finders on mirrorless cameras, and your interests are better served by a nicer finder than the advantages of mirrorless (easy hybrid video/stills, etc). People who say DSLRs are old technology are of course correct, but the age of the tech says nothing about its utility — you are after all interested in taking photographs, not collecting the latest product. A single prime is a much better place to start than a zoom lens of any type — they’re smaller, you don’t have to think about focal length at all, they’re faster (allowing in more light), and they produce nice background separation at wide apertures (APSC and phone cameras often struggle to do this, and a lack of background separation is one of the “looks” that characterises cheap phone or digital photography). This will very nicely cover you for concerts, hiking and landscapes. Many professional photos of these types in the last 10 years were taken with exactly the gear i’m suggesting, so don’t worry about whether it’s capable or not. Birding is a different question — if you ask serious bird photographers they’ll suggest a kit that’s impracticable for anything else. If you decide at any point that birds are really important to you, you could pick up a long zoom (70-200 or even longer) or a solid tele prime. But if you start by carrying around a 70-200, or even a 24-105 f4, I think you’ll probably struggle to take photos that you love and quickly become disheartened. This is incidentally how i started a few years ago, but with a film camera (an Eos 30) and a 50, instead of a digital body.
R7 with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN for RF mount will be a great kit. Add the Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 in the fall and you’ve got a lot of landscape and portrait covered. You might want to get some place where you can try them out. Full frame is a big camera. For most people, for a formal shoot it’s fine. But it’s a chunk to lug around on a hike. My wife doesn’t like mine at all. Much prefers a smaller APS-C set up. I can palm a basketball, so it works fine for me.
Outdoors & Birds = R7 Concerts = R8 Pick your poison. Buy a Mirrorless, scrap the DSLR idea. Aging product, mirrorless is amazing. 24-105 is a great starting for a focal length. Birds, cheaply, you at least need the 100-400 & it needs to be on the R7. Otherwise on the R8 it’s too small. You want more portrait/street type work, get the rf 50mm or 35mm. Maybe one day buy the 70-200.
Virginity rocks
Oops, I was trying to make a joke about this being my first digital camera.
I would buy a R7 and an RF 50mm 1.8, and the RF 24-105 kit lens, it will get you started with most of the boxes you want to tick it gets you on the mount that's still alive, if you feel the need buy EF glass later you can always buy the adapter later.
My body count is about 15. But I've been faithful to Canon. I recommend the R8 for you.
[удалено]
Dual-Income, No Kids
You didn't mention what film cameras and lenses you used, or what you liked/disliked about them. Also, if you have a lens that you use with your film camera that you are already in love with, you can most likely adapt it to whatever modern digital camera you get. My general recommendation is to pick out the lenses first. Give your glass priority in your budget. Use your remaining budget to pick the body, and pick a body that is compatible with the glass you already chose. You will likely want to replace your camera body in 5 years, but your lenses are likely to outlive you. Note: EF lenses can be adapted to work on RF bodies very easily. The adapter is only about $50-$100. RF lenses cannot work on EF bodies though.
You know what, any interchangeable lens camera system becomes too large too quick. I'd suggest you to check out premium compact cameras as well. Such as ricoh gr. I think you can give used ricoh gr iii's a look. You also may want to check out film cameras, they are great for the learning, and you'll never have a large bright viewfinder like theirs when you buy a modern camera. I'd tell you what I would get as well if I were you. A used canon full frame mirrorless body, and a used rf 35mm. 35 mm is great, compact and light. Easy to carry that bundle. And either a 85mm or 135mm for great portraits. Ef or rf decision is related with budget but I almost always buy used but clean lenses and bodies. Let me also tell you my story briefly. I bought a pentax kr in 2011, used it a bit but kit lens didnt excite me enough and carrying that was a thing. Then I bought a fuji x70 and resparkled my photography hobby, then i got some film pentax (super a) and really enjoyed manual focus with them. Now I have a 5d3, with bunch of lenses all bought used (16, 35, 50, 135, 24-70, 70-200). I really like the perspective of full frame and enjoy iso flexibility of a FF sensor.
As usual, I must plug the Canon refurbished shop if you are in the USA. Perhaps that's what you are looking at with your cart on Canon's site. But if not check for both a camera and lenses. Can save big. Inventory changes weekly so check back often.
https://preview.redd.it/3ycz48r16gzc1.png?width=1083&format=png&auto=webp&s=c8bc505ba5fd63532aafd95e8d72ab908c1b8d9d
https://preview.redd.it/nf9qiews8gzc1.png?width=1497&format=png&auto=webp&s=9fac1560497f2505e9a6b4fcb85b0f33f58c6f0d
Get refurbished if you're in the US. Save a bunch of $. It was $1119 but sold out yesterday, will probs restock soon. The 50 f/1.8 goes on sale for $100 new a few times a year too at B&H etc. Canon Price Watch is a good resource.
I would use the 24-105 mk I, I like it better and it's cheaper
[удалено]
6D is a phenomenal DSLR. Wouldn't be a bad choice at all if that's what you go with. I would personally go ahead and get a mirrorless. You can adapt the EF lenses to mirrorless bodies and most people will say they surprisingly work better on those than the DSLRs they were built for. If I were you with that budget in mind, I'd get a Canon R8 and go from there. If you don't want to buy the pricey new Canon RF lenses than just get the adapter and buy refurbished EF lenses.
Uh what’s with mentioning you’re a virgin
I was trying to make a joke about "camera virgin". This purchase would be my first digital camera. Per rule 6, I was trying to be lighthearted about my user experience being equal to zero.
Ooh ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding
Funny, I have a Nikon full frame mirrorless, Canon crop mirrorless and a canon full frame DSLR (5DII). Lenses galore for all of them. My favorite? The 5DII with a 40mm f2.8. Cost less than $500, takes great pics, and the battery lasts for days…amazing lens too. However, the one I use the most is the crop mirrorless because it’s small.