Canon EOS-400D IS Twin Zoom Kit

[x5x3]

Warehouse Express (www.warehouseexpress.com/?photo/digicameras/kits/CanonEOS400D.html) have a new 400D kit coming soon which looks like good value for money (includes the EF-S 17-85 IS USM and the EF-S 70-300 IS USM lenses).

I can't seem to find it anywhere else - does anyone know if it is generally available

[Zad]

WarehouseExpress said:

Canon EOS-400D IS Twin Zoom Kit
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
CB-2WE Battery Charger
NB-2LH Battery Pack
EW-100DBII Wide Strap

£1016 INCLUDING CASHBACK
£1199 or £50mth

Probably a good deal for 2 IS lenses, but I dunno, it looks a lot of money to spend on lenses for an 'ordinary' camera.

[robdickinson]

70-300IS is not EF-S but EF, and a cracking lens for the money.

[x5x3]

Zad said:

WarehouseExpress said:

Canon EOS-400D IS Twin Zoom Kit
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
CB-2WE Battery Charger
NB-2LH Battery Pack
EW-100DBII Wide Strap

£1016 INCLUDING CASHBACK
£1199 or £50mth

Probably a good deal for 2 IS lenses, but I dunno, it looks a lot of money to spend on lenses for an 'ordinary' camera.

That is an interesting point which leads me to a question, what do people think is worth investing more in, the camera or the lenses?

I was thinking that the lenses could be used if I upgraded the 400D, whereas it seems odd to get a better camera with lower spec lenses?

[RobDickinson]

IMO its always worth investing in lenses.

BUT that 17-85 is an EF-S lens and will not work on full frame cameras.

And the 70-300IS , nice as it is, is still consumer grade glass not pro(L) series stuff.

[poah]

whats ordinary about it TBH. the lenses are good prosumer lenses for a good prosumer camera. should you only buy certain lenses because you have a more expensive camera?


[quote=Zad
Probably a good deal for 2 IS lenses, but I dunno, it looks a lot of money to spend on lenses for an 'ordinary' camera.

[/quote]

[poah]

just as well the 400D is not a full frame camera then.

RobDickinson said:

IMO its always worth investing in lenses.

BUT that 17-85 is an EF-S lens and will not work on full frame cameras.

And the 70-300IS , nice as it is, is still consumer grade glass not pro(L) series stuff.

[poah]

define better? 40d has more fps and less noise and a better built body but the images you take are not going to be any better. tesco selling the 400d plus 18-50 lens for £400 (cheaper than body only at some other places. put kit lens on ebay and buy tamron 17-50 f2.8 £260, 70-200 f4 L £422 and you can get £50 cash back ont he camera.

x5x3 said:

Zad said:

WarehouseExpress said:

Canon EOS-400D IS Twin Zoom Kit
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
CB-2WE Battery Charger
NB-2LH Battery Pack
EW-100DBII Wide Strap

£1016 INCLUDING CASHBACK
£1199 or £50mth

Probably a good deal for 2 IS lenses, but I dunno, it looks a lot of money to spend on lenses for an 'ordinary' camera.

That is an interesting point which leads me to a question, what do people think is worth investing more in, the camera or the lenses?

I was thinking that the lenses could be used if I upgraded the 400D, whereas it seems odd to get a better camera with lower spec lenses?

[RobDickinson]

poah said:

just as well the 400D is not a full frame camera then.

I know that but if you 'invest' in a lens you may want to look at FF cameras in the future, the 17-85 will be useless for that.

If your 'investing' a 24-105 or 24-70 would be better.

[Zad]

poah said:

whats ordinary about it TBH. the lenses are good prosumer lenses for a good prosumer camera. should you only buy certain lenses because you have a more expensive camera?

Zad said:

Probably a good deal for 2 IS lenses, but I dunno, it looks a lot of money to spend on lenses for an 'ordinary' camera.

It is ordinary in the same way that a Mondeo 1.8 is ordinary. By ordinary I don't mean bad, just ordinary. I'd be perfectly happy if someone bought me one, but there we are. Given the same budget I'd choose differently that's all.

[poah]

not every one is going to go full frame or if they do they can sell their digital only lenses. not buying efs or digital only lenses means you don't have some of the best lenses or the FL required for a 35mm equiv 16mm. if I ever upgrade to a 1d series (1.3x) I'll just sell my digital lenses no biggy.

RobDickinson said:

poah said:

just as well the 400D is not a full frame camera then.

I know that but if you 'invest' in a lens you may want to look at FF cameras in the future, the 17-85 will be useless for that.

If your 'investing' a 24-105 or 24-70 would be better.

[poah]

what woul you choose for £1050

Zad said:

poah said:

whats ordinary about it TBH. the lenses are good prosumer lenses for a good prosumer camera. should you only buy certain lenses because you have a more expensive camera?

Zad said:

Probably a good deal for 2 IS lenses, but I dunno, it looks a lot of money to spend on lenses for an 'ordinary' camera.

It is ordinary in the same way that a Mondeo 1.8 is ordinary. By ordinary I don't mean bad, just ordinary. I'd be perfectly happy if someone bought me one, but there we are. Given the same budget I'd choose differently that's all.