Lyft Industrial Deals Fall Reading Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Alexa on Mobile PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Spider-Man: Homecoming available to buy Spider-Man: Homecoming available to buy Spider-Man: Homecoming available to buy  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held GNO Tailgating FFII_gno
Customer Discussions > Photography forum

lens recommendation for canon t3i dSLR

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 31 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 30, 2011, 5:40:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2011, 5:42:25 AM PDT
BeingHonest says:
I posted in the t31 product page, but this is probably a more appropriate forum for discussion.

I am a beginner to dSLR. Have tried a 18-55 mm lens on a Nikon camera, and got great pictures. I recently bought a t3i body only. I would like to get some recommendation for a lens. I like to buy a single lens which will get me great pictures, both portrait and telephoto for lansdscape. I am not a big fan of carrying multiple lenses and changing them. Could you please recommend one. Thanks!

Posted on Apr 30, 2011, 7:46:52 AM PDT
Neo Lee says:
You'll find the following topic similar to yours:

Posted on May 1, 2011, 5:03:38 PM PDT
S. Buth says:
All pro`s recommend this lens:
Or You can find other general purpose lens here:

Posted on May 2, 2011, 5:54:58 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
"The Digital Picture" is an _excellent_ website for lens reviews -- definitely one of my favorites.

As for the "not a big fan of carrying multiple lenses and changing them", keep in mind the ability to swap lenses is pretty much the whole point of the DSLR.

The problem with a single lens is that there is simple no such thing as a single lens that can do it all. Lens buying is always a game of compromises. Physics and economics dictate that it pretty much has to be this way. What's important to you and what can you live without?

You can find lenses such as the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3... but when you take a close look at it, it has a highly desirable zoom range, but beyond that the lens is not that great (and that's probably the most polite way I can put it.) Telephoto images are soft... everywhere, but especially bad in corners. Chromatic aberration (the notion that curved or angled glass behaves like a prism and separates colors into a prism... unable to focus all wave-lengths at the same point) is really obvious with it (you'll see color "fringing" ... off center objects will have a blueish fringe on the edge nearest the center of the frame and a redish fringe on the edge farthest from center of frame.) So while you wont have to change lenses... when you start seeing the results you'll probably wish you were changing lenses.

My own guideline is that a zoom lens with about a 3x zoom factor is very reasonable. That's a modest range where you can expect good results pretty much throughout the range. For example the "kit" lens that comes with most Canon rebel bodies is the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Multiple 18 (the low-end of the focal range) by 3x and you come up with 57. The high-end of the focal range on that lens is 55. So it's comfortably about 3x zoom. I find that you can get a little more aggressive... say 5x. So if you consider the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, it's just under a 5x zoom range (55 x 5 = 275). A 5x zoom factor is probably the high end of the reasonable zoom range before image quality starts to suffer in a noticeable way.

The Sigma 18-250, on the other hand is nearly 14x -- that's much too ambitious for a zoom range if you want good results.

You'll be much happier with the 18-55 combined with the 55-250 as a pair of lenses which you occasionally swap then you will be with the single 18-250 lens.

But again, lens buying is always a game of compromises. There is a market for that 18-250 lens. If you know what you're getting and you _really_ want the convenience, are probably just going to be shooting some snaps to share with friends, wont ever enlarge them (you can hide a lot of sins by keeping the image side on the small-ish side), then you might be happy with the lens. But know what you're getting into before you buy so you have appropriate expectations.

Posted on May 2, 2011, 7:02:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2011, 7:03:51 PM PDT
BeingHonest says:
Thanks a lot for this detailed review. Helps a lot! I am thinking of buying 2 lenses. I like to take portraits of my kids. So thinking of buying Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR. Otherwise, the cheaper f1.8.

If I do get one of these, what other lens would be a nice combination for some distant pictures? Can this lens take decent quality labscape pictures? If not, would like a lens recommendation for that purpose. Thanks!

Posted on May 2, 2011, 7:11:40 PM PDT
Neo Lee says:
50mm showing a pretty much limited angle of view is not for landscape. For most landscapes, you'll want widest view possible, and for that you'll gonna need a super wide angle lens like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 10-20mm.

Kit lenses are fine for landscape photography. Shoot at the widest focal length.

Posted on May 2, 2011, 7:31:30 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
For landscapes you typically want wide-angle -- avoid telephoto. Here's the example: imagine going to the Grand Canyon. It's very large, very scenic. Now imagine shooting all the photos of the grand canyon with a lens that has an angle of view representing what you'd see if you tried to look at the grand canyon through a soda straw. Even with an entire album filled with soda-straw pictures of the grand canyon it would be _really_ hard to imagine the beauty of the place because the angle of view is far too narrow.

If you find yourself wanting to "take in the whole view" while looking at the scene in real life, then you probably want to be using a wide-angle lens on your camera to photograph it.

As for the difference in the two 50mm lenses... optically they are quite similar. The big difference is in pretty much everything else.

The EF 50mm f/1.8 has great optics but the body is light plastic that feels cheap... because it is cheap. The focus motor is noisy and slow. It has a 5 blade aperture and the quality of the background blur is "fair". De-focused points of light will blur in the 5-sided pentagon shape because of the aperture blades.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM has a much quieter and faster focus motor. It has an 8 blade aperture that gives a more pleasing background blur when you want it and de-focused points of light will be more circular. The lens body feels more solid and substantial.

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2011, 2:20:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 3, 2011, 2:25:10 AM PDT
BeingHonest says:
Thanks T Campbell. Really nice post and very clear.

I can now see why there is a big price difference for the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. I was thinking about this lens based on other reviews on Amazon. Is that the one that you would recommend too for portrait pics?

Secondly, for photographing landscapes, what are your thoughts on the 3 lenses that I have now come across:

1. The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs: you had recommended this in reply to someone else's qn.

2. Sigma 10-20mm. The one recommended in this discussion.

Let me remind you that the camera I have is the Canon rebel T3i body only.

This discussion is very helpful. Thanks a lot!

Posted on May 3, 2011, 12:39:02 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
Budget is an important consideration (or is it?).

As for the 50mm lenses:

If it is, then there's probably no better bargain than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (list is $99... although many/most places sell it for closer to $125-130). It's a good lens from an optical point of view. The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is about 2/3rds of an f-stop faster (at wide-open it collects just shy of double the amount of light... meaning you can use faster shutter speeds and have better performance in low lighting.) Of course the f/1.4 version of the lens costs considerably more.

The tricky bit about _really_ low focal ratios (e.g. f/1.4) is that the depth of field is fast approaching a point where it is "paper thin". At minimum focus distance, if you were try to take a photo of a penny on a table you would notice that the camera lens really _needs_ to be perpendicular to the table surface (not taking the shot on an angle) *and* while the surface of the penny is focused sharp you would see the grain of the table surface was noticeably blurred. This is because at minimum focus distance and max aperture on an f/1.4 lens, the depth of field (nearest and farthest point where the image will seem to be acceptably focused) is actually thinner than the thickness of a coin (you can do some dramatically artsy things when you learn to master this but it takes some work.) Usually you will find both lenses work the best when you choose focal ratios of f/2.0 or above. This is my long way of saying that while the f/1.4 is capable of capturing more light, you probably wont use it that way in every day use. As such what you're _really_ paying for in the f/1.4 lens is the higher build quality, faster & quieter auto-focus and the 8-blade aperture.

If you comfortable spending the extra few hundred dollars for the f/1.4 version, it is the better lens and you'll be happy with it. But if you are not comfortable spending the extra, just get the f/1.8 and put up with the noisy slow AF motor (or just manually focus the lens) and be content in knowing how much money you saved. Because when comparing the sharpness of the images from each lens, you wont be able to notice much of a difference.

As for the ultra-wide angle lenses:

First I want to stress that all of these "zoom" lenses are zooming in the ultra-wide angle range (e.g. 10mm is "ultra-wide") to the standard wide angle range (20-22mm would be just "wide angle") As such, they don't make good general purpose lenses for walking around and every day shots. That's another discussion thread.

The Digital Picture's favorite of the bunch (and they review approximately 6 different lenses that all have roughly this same ultra-wide angle zoom range) is still the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs. It's one of the pricier lenses, but overall they feel it has some of the best corner-to-corner performance. Canon's lenses usually are just a little better than the third party lenses (same is true of Nikon lenses) unless you're buying an exotic high-end third party lens... such as Zeiss (usually not priced for the budget-minded photographer.)

Their second favorite was a Sigma but it wasn't the 10-20 (btw, there are two different Sigma 10-20 lenses)... it was the 8-16. But this was because they liked the extra wide-angle field of view at 8mm and possibly also the assumption that you might already have a lens that covers 18mm and up (such as the 18-55mm 'kit' lenses that come with most entry-level digital cameras.)

The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras was their favorite for the budget-minded (it's under $500).

The *other* Sigma 10-20mm is the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras which has a better/faster focal ratio (constant f/3.5 aperture vs. the variable f/4-5.6 aperture) but of course you pay for that... price is closer to $650. (There's a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that's even faster yet.)

Lenses with low focal ratios are usually highly desirable for two reasons:

1) When necessary, you can shoot action shots in lower light. While any lens can shoot in low light, if the aperture opening is small then fewer photons travel through the lens at a time. In order to create a proper exposure, you need to keep the shutter open longer. That means you'd need a tripod to keep the camera still while the shutter is open AND you can only shoot subjects that are also remaining still (or there would be motion blur.) If you're shooting action, you want to be able to expose the shot with a fast shutter speed and a low focal ratio lets you do that.

2) You can force a narrow depth-of-field. This is the range at which objects will seem to be more-or-less acceptably focused. To really call attention to a subject, it's usually desirable to create a photograph where the subject is nice & sharp, but everything else is blurry (deliberately). For example... sports photographers want the athlete to be sharp but they want the spectators in the background to be blurry. This helps the subject (the athlete) stand out in the photo.

When buying a zoom lens for sports, it's worthwhile to spend the extra to get a nice fast lens (low focal ratio). An ultra-wide angle lens, on the other hand, is usually going to be used for either scenic landscape or architecture photography. When shooting landscapes or architecture you have the advantage that nothing is moving... so it doesn't matter how slow the lens is. You can put the camera on a tripod and just take a longer photo. Also when shooting landscapes you usually want to maximize the depth of field (whereas in other types of photography you want to limit it.) This means a "fast" wide-angle lens is usually not a necessity. BTW there are exceptions to this but usually it's ok if your ultra-wide angle lens does not have a particularly fast/low focal ratio (meanwhile my own ultra-wide angle lens is a 14mm f/2.8L. But it's definitely not something I'd recommend to someone who is just getting started... it's a very expensive lens.)

So back to that budget consideration I started with... if you are concerned about the price then go with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (sub $500 range). If you're NOT so concerned with the budget then go with the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs.

One last comment... if you're wondering what sort of images you get with any of these lenses, keep in mind that there's a dedicated group on flickr for just about every lens you can imagine. Go to their website and do a 'groups' -> 'search for a group' and type in the rough description of the lens (e.g. "sigma 10-22mm f/4-5.6" would be enough) and you'll find literally thousands of sample photos to get a great idea of what the lens is capable of as well as a lot of ideas for how you might want to use it.

Posted on May 3, 2011, 2:01:26 PM PDT
BeingHonest says:
Thankyou. This has been a very useful discussion for anyone interested in this topic. I appreciate your time to write back in detail.

In reply to an earlier post on May 4, 2011, 5:41:41 AM PDT
F64 says:
With no disrespect meant to any of the responders, several were recommending you to use the widest lens you could for landscape, implying it as a necessity. That advice is a newbie mistake, frankly. It all depends on the view you wish to capture. Keep in mind that the wider you go, the smaller the elements in your photo. Are there some cases where you want the whole earth and sky to show? Sure. But is that the only way to shoot LS? No.
I have used lenses as long as 600mm for landscape when there are hills/mountains involved, and I wanted that compression to get them stacked against each other. Personally, I tend to use my 70-200 for LS, and it is zoomed most often to the 100-135 range. There is no "right" way to shoot LS, and don't be persuaded otherwise.
As to your question, I have a T3i which I just bought to travel with, and I am using a Tamron 14mm rect WA along with a 24-105. On that body, one way or the other I think you need something shorter than 24 or you lose the close stuff. I am on the lookout for a quality zoom starting about 15-18mm on the low end.

In reply to an earlier post on May 4, 2011, 8:51:48 AM PDT
My favorite walking-around lens is Canon 18-200mm. Recently, I added a Canon 50mm 1.8. Between them, I'm doing well (L-glass or the 200 is just out of my $$$-range!) Btw, my subjects range from scenery to architecture to flowers to animals.

I'd have added a link to my Flickr account so you could see examples, but I'm not sure if that's permitted or recommended.

Posted on May 4, 2011, 3:19:39 PM PDT
G-money says:
If buy online, and of course this applies to most things, take the time and effort to handle the choices you have narrowed down. To me, if a reasonable price difference differentiates flimsy and solid feeling; smooth zooming; and if it is important to you, as it is to me, place of manufacture, the decision almost makes itself. I'm not talking L level kit; but consumer level. I was so close to a downright BS bait&switch (my second - they got me the first time....rookie!) but knowing precisely the lens I wanted, and refusing to accept the new "plastic fantastic" left me feeling on top of my game. Canon EF 100mm - 300mm USM 4.5 - 5.6 early nineties model;metal over metal with (I think) metal barrel model. Still can't find a fault considering what I paid that guy, albeit slow lens speed. The few grand to improve that, were better as travel funds! Digi or film, handle it like it's yours in the store; offer them a fair offer, wait for the degrading smirk & ignore that pushy guy behind the counter; find your best price from a reputable online dealer and don't look back. Julie Andrews and my favorite things: original brands (never-fail Canon & Panasonic my faves), decent glass; metal lens mounts on both sides; feels "right" when using; (more likely to use, duh!) include a small lens, not to stuff in the kit bag, but for those casual, pack light, outings. I like 24; 28 over 50mm for that role. Merely a personal thing. BTW great glass will appear in those used online auction type sites; like new and cheap!! nuff said! Go get Binary! regards GW

In reply to an earlier post on May 4, 2011, 6:18:27 PM PDT
J. Johnson says:
Hey R.Janardhanan,

I have the Canon 7D and can vouch for the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. It's a fantastic lens with amazing L-Lens qualities.
It's biggest weakness seems to be its limited abilities in low-light (f/3.5 - f/4.5), especially for shooting HD-Video.

I just recently broke down, bit the bullet, and bought the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and I couldn't be happier with it.
It's as close as you'll get to a single, live on your camera lens... unless you need to go wider... or longer.
But that's why I didn't sell my EF-S 10-22mm... and why I've immediately started saving up for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) lens.
(although I'd like to eventually upgrade my EF-S 10-22mm to either the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L or the EF 14mm f/2.8L)

As much as I'd love to build a kit of Zeiss SLR Prime Lenses, I just can't justify the price of getting all those lenses,
especially when I can get the 3 Canon lenses above for well under $4,000 and get twice the coverage (200mm instead of 100mm).

I know that's a lot of money, but I'm looking at these lenses as investments that I'll likely keep most of my life.

Hope my 2-cents worth helps.
Cheers :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2011, 2:00:34 PM PDT
You are no longer a beginner - to wit, you bought a T3i.
In my opinion, buy the absolute Canon-branded BEST glass you can afford. You already have a VERY decent body (the T3i) and a very good to excellent lens will give your imagination and creativity the best boost.
And for better handling, balance, and in the field capabilities, do not forget to check out the the BG-E8 Vertical Battery Grip, an excellent accessory for the medium-sized T3i form.
To answer your question, I would buy the L-Series 16-35mm as your first BIG investment. And then the 70-200mm L. You will have to learn that changing lenses IS a given if you really want quality - and best use of a DSLR body that can accept interchangeable lenses.
Happy hunting!

Posted on Jun 1, 2011, 5:33:13 PM PDT
Derek says:
I'm a newbie to the DSLR world with the purchase of the T3i also about a month ago. Sounds like we are in about the same place in photography. I must say I love this camera! I take mostly family pictures of my kids who are always moving. I got mine with the kit lens 18-55. I also bought the 50mm 1.4 which is what has stayed on my camera most of the time. Pictures from the 50mm are the ones getting all the good comments from friends/family. For telephoto of the kids sports events the 100-400 is supposed to be THE lens to get but I just can't justify that kind of money. My next purchases will probably be the 70-300 (on sale until mid June then the price goes up $150) and the 10-22 which are more reasonably priced as lens prices go. If you're looking for the one walk around lens then the photo podcasts I've listened to seem to agree on the 24-70 which runs about $1400. One other note...Amazon seems to be higher priced on some of the lenses so check out Adorama or B&H to make sure you're getting the best deal. I've heard the issues in Japan have caused a shortage in camera gear and an increase in prices.

Posted on Jun 1, 2011, 7:37:14 PM PDT
PatM says:
Go on the camera support and learning site there you will find the discription of all the lenses You may be interested in and will be able to see them in action or full discript from the cheapest to most expensive then make an educated selection
Also Cameras go down in Price GOOD TOP Quality lenses decrease in value very very slowly
Keep in mind the Camera doesnt take Photos its thhe operator behind Camera or Photographer - many photographers have taken some shots with moderate equipment and came away with outstanding results Learn Your Camera then go to it and you wont be disappointed with the results have fun and enjoy

Posted on Jun 1, 2011, 10:55:38 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
Telephoto zooms for kids sports will depend on the sport. Outdoor daytime sports (e.g. soccer) are usually not so much of a problem. Sports played indoors (e.g. basketball) can suffer if the indoor lighting isn't particularly bright (and usually it's not). Lenses with higher focal ratios (less light is collected) end up requiring longer exposure times and possibly blurred shots because the shutter speed wasn't fast enough. You can compensate by cranking up the ISO sensitivity but this results in higher image noise (you can use computer software to reduce the intensity of the noise.)

Ideally when buying a lens, you buy the lowest focal ratio you can afford (f/2.8 in a zoom... in a prime lens you can usually get even faster) so that you don't have to deal with the problem.

As far as lens resale... Canon's L series lenses tend to hold their resale value extremely well (an L series lens will typically hold 85% of it's value) -- helped in part by the fact that whenever Canon updates a lens. For example... the original EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM was about $2000. The next generation of the same lens, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II, has retail price $500 higher ($2500). This tends to help the original hold it's resale value rather well.

Although these are great lenses, the price tags are steep. Depending on what you're planning to do with your photos, you might not be able to tell the difference. I wouldn't necessarily recommend L series glass if you're just sharing photos on social websites (the image resolution is too small to be able to tell the difference.)

Posted on Jun 2, 2011, 1:17:55 PM PDT
Klaus says:
I have a T2i (I live in Europe, where it's called EOS 550D), which uses the same sensor as the T3i. I just bought a Canon 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 and I find it a very versatile and sharp lens. The zoom range is quite large, and as others has stated, this migth spell trouble. I've found that the DPP software that came with the camera is capable of correcting the faults of this lens, so if you shoot raw and can live with the not so large aperture, I think you will find this a very good starting lens. You can come a long way with ISO 1600 if you don't enlarge too much. As you become skilled, you will probably want to go wider (like Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22) or longer (like Canon 70-300 or 100-400), but I would not recommend that you start with the ultra-wide zooms. Using ultra-wide lenses challenges any photographer, and you might loose interest in the whole thing if you get too many disappointing results.

I've been a happy amateur for 40 years now, and though this is my honest opinion, you may find others' advice and experience to coincide more with yours.
Whatever you decide: good luck and happy shooting.

Posted on Jun 2, 2011, 6:39:12 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
Softness can be "sharpened" but there are limits. A barcode is an excellent example to use...

Imagine you take a photo of a barcode with an excellent lens. You should get bold black pixels right next to bright white pixels... and no gray pixels. The definition of the "edges" of each line are sharp.

Now imagine taking the same photo with a mildly soft lens. The edges are just a touch "fuzzy"... gray pixels between the black pixels and white pixels. Sharpening software can usually do a great job with these mildly soft images, which can be corrected to look nearly as good as the photo taken by a very good lens. Note that it's usually only "nearly" as good.. not quite perfect.

But now suppose we either degrade the softness a little more or just use finer lines and put them closer (the white gaps aren't very wide). Now the grey area smudges completely between the black lines and there is no longer an obvious white gap. In this case the "sharpening" operation will be unable to recover the image.

There are more issues than just "softness" (really "acutance" and "resolution") but this is probably the most commonly evaluated characteristic.

This is, in party, why I mention that whether or not you need to spend a lot of money on a very high quality lens really depends on what you plan to do with the images. The softness usually doesn't show up in images the size of what would typically be posted to social networks like Facebook or even Flickr (you can hide a lot of problems by just keeping the image size small) and in many images the softness can be cleaned up to reasonable results. If you shoot professionally and/or plan to make images large enough to frame and hang in a gallery THEN you probably want the top quality glass.
Your reply to T. Campbell's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)

Posted on Jun 6, 2012, 3:51:57 PM PDT
I just buy the t3i with lens kit , but I looking to get everyday lens som people recommend the 135/28 mm lens any suggestion

Posted on Jun 8, 2012, 1:50:08 PM PDT
GJL says:
If you're going to use the store, buy from the store. If you're not willing to pay the price they need to stay in business, then stick with the on-line merchants.

I buy from both but I certainly don't use my local shop as a free demo and consulting service. When we do that, we're helping to put an end to the local shop ....

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012, 6:57:43 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
BTW - this is off-topic (slightly), but both Canon and Nikon have inventory policies designed to help keep the local stores in business. Neither Canon nor Nikon will give priority to major merchants. If they release a new product and can only supply 5 units of some new hot camera per dealer, then EVERY dealer is entitled to the same number of units. B&H, Adorma, & Amazon don't get priority. This means when B&H, Adorma, Amazon... and even big box sellers like Best Buy are all "out of stock" on the new hot camera... the little neighborhood photo store with low-volume but high quality sales staff is MUCH more likely to actually have the thing in stock.

I helped a friend buy a Canon PowerShot G1 X when they were out of stock everywhere. He was taking a trip and wanted to update from his old camera, but he needed it in the next few days and none of the major retailers had it. I called the local "real" camera store in town and they said "Oh yeah... we've got 2 of them in stock." I asked them to put my name on one and we'd be there in 30 minutes.

My local camera store (it's not *that* local... it's about a 30 minute drive for me) carries the most popular of the pro gear. E.g. if I wanted a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM lens... they'd have that in stock (Best Buy would not). But if I wanted a tilt-shift lens... that'd be a special order even for the small shop.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012, 7:21:51 PM PDT
"This means when B&H, Adorma, Amazon... and even big box sellers like Best Buy are all "out of stock" on the new hot camera... the little neighborhood photo store with low-volume but high quality sales staff is MUCH more likely to actually have the thing in stock."

True. When the 7D first shipped, the only place it was in stock was at the full-service independent camera shop in my "area" (50 miles away, actually). And, due to the manufacturer's pricing policies for certified dealers, it was the same price as online (except for state sales tax, of course).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012, 9:49:20 AM PDT
30 minutes drive around here could be three miles if traffic is bad :)

Many people are confused about what a "local' camera store is. It's not best buy, and it's not the chain in the mall. We have a good one around here, ace photo. It's a hole in the wall in a light industrial/warehouse area. It's hard to find, and when you walk in the door, just ask for help because you won't find anything. But they have everything, and they can answer every question. I've gone in more than once with "Hi, I have this, and this, is there any way to connect them?" and come out with the answer.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Photography forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Photography forum
Participants:  21
Total posts:  31
Initial post:  Apr 30, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 28, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers