Need help finding a great camera. :)

ob81 · June 21, 2007

Alright. I have never owned a DSLR before. I searched the threads, because I just KNEW that the question has been asked before "What camera should I buy?" From my browsing, I take it that everyone mainly likes Canon. A few like Nikon, but mainly for the base DSLR.
About me. I love photography, but I have never taken that step to do anything serious with it. Until now. I have always worked around photos. I make custom slideshows for people (friends family) of their own photos and I get huge raves for it. I travel to some very exotic places on the regular.

Now you can help me choose a camera!!

Canon® EOS 30D
EF18-55mm F3.5-5.6II standard zoom lens
EF55-200mm F4.5-5.6II USM telephoto
$1,599.00

Canon® EOS Digital Rebel XTi 10.1
EF-S18-55mm lens
$879.00

Nikon® D80™ 10.2MP
18-55mm Lens
$1,069.00

Nikon® D40x™ 10.2MP
18-135mm Zoom
$1,029.00

Nikon® D80™ 10.2MP
18-135mm
$1,299.00

Price doesn't matter, but you can can see about how much I am willing pay. I have these options because I can purchase these items with free delivery and no tax. Which camera would you buy?
The only clue I have is cost, but I know sometimes just because something costs more, it doesn't mean its better.
Thanks in advance.

ziggy53 · June 21, 2007

Wow, that is quite a spread of cameras.

All of these cameras are capable of capturing great images. All of these cameras are also quite capable of capturing poor quality snapshots.

I think you will find, as you grow and learn as a photographer, that great images are a combination of many different factors and properties. The camera is kind of farther down the list in priorities.

The subject is the first most important factor in a great photo. If you don't start with great content, you cannot achieve more than a good photo, no matter the equipment.

Next is the light. Many folks misunderstand the importance of lighting the subject, or at least capturing the subject under optimal lighting conditions.

Lenses are an extremely important component in actually forming the image within a system. It takes very high quality lenses to record in the most diverse conditions, and a decent selection of lenses is important to accomplish various tasks.

Camera sensitivity and responsiveness "may" be important for a particular situation, and cameras with more sensitivity and responsiveness are almost always a benefit.

Considering all of this, while any of the above systems can indeed take pictures, the Canon 30D is the one among those listed with the best high ISO performance, the fastest response, the best metering (IMHO) and a great selection of lenses to boot. (Nikkor lenses are also pretty fantastic when you get above the consumer level.)

I suggest that you spend a bit more time with your lens selection. For travel I suggest:

I think the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8IS is a great all-a-round lens for the 1.6x crop cameras. A good alternative is the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD, if you can do without the IS of the Canon lens. I think that would cover around 50% - 60% of all opportunities.

Another set of opportunities could be solved with the Canon 70-200mm, f4L (with or without the IS). And finally, ultra wide vista landscapes really cry for a Canon EF-S 10-22mm, or the Sigma 10-20mm.

So three lenses is what I would really recommend, but the 17-55-ish range is the first one to satisfy.

I would also add either the Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 or f1.8 for low-light work.

If you decide to go Nikon, the D200 is a great camera, very responsive and similar to the Canon 30D in some critical aspects. I do think the Canon has better sensitivity, but the Nikon has a better flash system in i-TTL (very much IMHO).

ob81 · June 21, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

Wow, that is quite a spread of cameras.

All of these cameras are capable of capturing great images. All of these cameras are also quite capable of capturing poor quality snapshots.

I think you will find, as you grow and learn as a photographer, that great images are a combination of many different factors and properties. The camera is kind of farther down the list in priorities.

The subject is the first most important factor in a great photo. If you don't start with great content, you cannot achieve more than a good photo, no matter the equipment.

Next is the light. Many folks misunderstand the importance of lighting the subject, or at least capturing the subject under optimal lighting conditions.

Lenses are an extremely important component in actually forming the image within a system. It takes very high quality lenses to record in the most diverse conditions, and a decent selection of lenses is important to accomplish various tasks.

Camera sensitivity and responsiveness "may" be important for a particular situation, and cameras with more sensitivity and responsiveness are almost always a benefit.

Considering all of this, while any of the above systems can indeed take pictures, the Canon 30D is the one among those listed with the best high ISO performance, the fastest response, the best metering (IMHO) and a great selection of lenses to boot. (Nikkor lenses are also pretty fantastic when you get above the consumer level.)

I suggest that you spend a bit more time with your lens selection. For travel I suggest:

I think the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8IS is a great all-a-round lens for the 1.6x crop cameras. A good alternative is the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD, if you can do without the IS of the Canon lens. I think that would cover around 50% - 60% of all opportunities.

Another set of opportunities could be solved with the Canon 70-200mm, f4L (with or without the IS). And finally, ultra wide vista landscapes really cry for a Canon EF-S 10-22mm, or the Sigma 10-20mm.

So three lenses is what I would really recommend, but the 17-55-ish range is the first one to satisfy.

I would also add either the Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 or f1.8 for low-light work.

If you decide to go Nikon, the D200 is a great camera, very responsive and similar to the Canon 30D in some critical aspects. I do think the Canon has better sensitivity, but the Nikon has a better flash system in i-TTL (very much IMHO).

I have a Pro Photographer friend, and all he talks about is light all day. I may have an over advanced reference, but the light setups that he has going on are WAY out of my league at this point.
Right now I am trying to focus on my equipment.

I agree that the camera is near dead last on the list of what makes a great photo, but while using my canon DE, at times, if I had a better camera, some of my shots would have came out a hell of a lot better. A good camera won't turn me into a photographer, but it will factor in, in narrowing down the question of why my shots are jacked up.

I have been reading about them a lot, and came to the conclusion that I absolutely NEEDED at lease a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I wanted experiment with these two lens initially, then move to try to shoot some landscapes(very few in Japan may I add).

Thanks for putting the Canon EF-S 10-22mm on my radar though because I will start saving for it, and thinking of a good excuse to buy it.
Jeez, it normally takes like 5-10 posts on other forums to get a decent response. Thanks for the 30D vote.

Rhuarc · June 21, 2007

ob81 wrote:

I have a Pro Photographer friend, and all he talks about is light all day. I may have an over advanced reference, but the light setups that he has going on are WAY out of my league at this point.
Right now I am trying to focus on my equipment.

I agree that the camera is near dead last on the list of what makes a great photo, but while using my canon DE, at times, if I had a better camera, some of my shots would have came out a hell of a lot better. A good camera won't turn me into a photographer, but it will factor in, in narrowing down the question of why my shots are jacked up.

I have been reading about them a lot, and came to the conclusion that I absolutely NEEDED at lease a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I wanted experiment with these two lens initially, then move to try to shoot some landscapes(very few in Japan may I add).

Thanks for putting the Canon EF-S 10-22mm on my radar though because I will start saving for it, and thinking of a good excuse to buy it.
Jeez, it normally takes like 5-10 posts on other forums to get a decent response. Thanks for the 30D vote.

You will find that responses here are usually quick and helpful! I'll put in my vote for the 30D as well. I have the XTi, only because the 30D is basically twice as much. I really like the XTi, but it doesn't have quite as nice of a feel as the 30D.

Scott_Quier · June 21, 2007

ob81 wrote:

I have been reading about them a lot, and came to the conclusion that I absolutely NEEDED at lease a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I wanted experiment with these two lens initially, then move to try to shoot some landscapes(very few in Japan may I add).

The 18-55 is a decent starter lens, but there's a reason that it's only about $100. It has it's problems.

The 55-200 lists for about $200. There's a number of good reasons why it is so inexpensive. The most obvious is it's ability to gather light, or, rather, it's inability to gather light. At f/4.5 - 5.6, you will have problems getting any images other than in relatively bright light.

If you are dead certain that you are going to be into photography for the long haul, I might suggest you investigate further the lens recommendations made by Ziggy. The 17-55 is a sweet lens with wide application. The Canon 70-200 lenses are some of the best in that range made. At f/4, it will pretty much be an outdoor lens, but there will be exceptions. The faster f/2.8 will work very will indoors as well, but at a much dearer price point.

On the other hand, if you are just getting your feet wet to determine if this is something you want to do for the long term, I might recommend XTi kit you outlined and throw in the EF55-200mm F4.5-5.6II USM telephoto for longer reach. Experiment and see what you like and don't like to photograph. Then, when you decide to upgrade your lenses, you are only out about $300. That decision point will be after you have some experience and know better what you want to do. Hold off on a camera body upgrade until you find that the XTi CAN'T do what you need.

Your Nikon choices might be good. Might not. I don't know as I know almost NOTHING about the Nikon system except, like Ziggy says, any of the camera bodies can make wonderful photographs (given good subject and light).

ziggy53 · June 21, 2007

ob81 wrote:

...

I have been reading about them a lot, and came to the conclusion that I absolutely NEEDED at lease a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I wanted experiment with these two lens initially, then move to try to shoot some landscapes(very few in Japan may I add).

Thanks for putting the Canon EF-S 10-22mm on my radar though because I will start saving for it, and thinking of a good excuse to buy it.
...

Unfortunately, the lenses you mention, the "kit" 18-55mm and the 55-200mm are very much consumer lenses, and need small apertures to produce sharp images.

I "highly" recommend one of the other middle zooms I mentioned for much better results in the 17-55-ish range.

The 55-200mm may get you by for a while, but if you can't afford the 70-200mm, f4L, then I almost suggest a 70-300mm consumer lens instead. Most of the 70-200mm lenses are pretty good to 200mm, especially stopped down around f8. Since a longer zoom is mostly used outdoors, it's better to economize there (IMO).

Reviews to read:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

claudermilk · June 21, 2007

I'd like to hear more about your experience with photography, what you like to shoot, and why you are looking at stepping up to a DSLR before throwing out a bunch of recommendations on how to spend a bunch of money. It sounds like you have done some photography and have some idea of what you're looking for so are not starting from square one.

wesleyt · June 21, 2007

I started with the 30D and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and couldn't be happier. I next added the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS and love it as well.

Glass quality matters; don't skimp. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to buy L-grade every time; there are many other good options.

Regards,
Wes

Rhuarc · June 21, 2007

I have the 70-300 IS as well. It is the Non-DO version, so it is a little larger, but for the price ($600) I have been VERY happy with it. On a 1.6x body like the XTi it is perfect for zoo visits!

ob81 · June 21, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

The 18-55 is a decent starter lens, but there's a reason that it's only about $100. It has it's problems.

The 55-200 lists for about $200. There's a number of good reasons why it is so inexpensive. The most obvious is it's ability to gather light, or, rather, it's inability to gather light. At f/4.5 - 5.6, you will have problems getting any images other than in relatively bright light.

If you are dead certain that you are going to be into photography for the long haul, I might suggest you investigate further the lens recommendations made by Ziggy. The 17-55 is a sweet lens with wide application. The Canon 70-200 lenses are some of the best in that range made. At f/4, it will pretty much be an outdoor lens, but there will be exceptions. The faster f/2.8 will work very will indoors as well, but at a much dearer price point.

On the other hand, if you are just getting your feet wet to determine if this is something you want to do for the long term, I might recommend XTi kit you outlined and throw in the EF55-200mm F4.5-5.6II USM telephoto for longer reach. Experiment and see what you like and don't like to photograph. Then, when you decide to upgrade your lenses, you are only out about $300. That decision point will be after you have some experience and know better what you want to do. Hold off on a camera body upgrade until you find that the XTi CAN'T do what you need.

Your Nikon choices might be good. Might not. I don't know as I know almost NOTHING about the Nikon system except, like Ziggy says, any of the camera bodies can make wonderful photographs (given good subject and light).

Yes, I checked the lens that Ziggy recommended right after he brought it up. It would be wise if I just purchased the body, and then purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens he referenced as a starter lens. Then I can invest in the 55-200mm IS and go from there. I have learned that the "F/2.8" portion is very important, and lens seem to get cheaper as this number raises.

ob81 · June 21, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

Unfortunately, the lenses you mention, the "kit" 18-55mm and the 55-200mm are very much consumer lenses, and need small apertures to produce sharp images.

I "highly" recommend one of the other middle zooms I mentioned for much better results in the 17-55-ish range.

The 55-200mm may get you by for a while, but if you can't afford the 70-200mm, f4L, then I almost suggest a 70-300mm consumer lens instead. Most of the 70-200mm lenses are pretty good to 200mm, especially stopped down around f8. Since a longer zoom is mostly used outdoors, it's better to economize there (IMO).

Reviews to read:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Thanks. I am almost certain that I will skip the consumer lens. I read some reveiws on them, and some people had issues, and others didn't. It would probably be a waste, if eventually, I will end up buying a larger aperture 17-55mm anyway.

ob81 · June 21, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

I'd like to hear more about your experience with photography, what you like to shoot, and why you are looking at stepping up to a DSLR before throwing out a bunch of recommendations on how to spend a bunch of money. It sounds like you have done some photography and have some idea of what you're looking for so are not starting from square one.

My history of actual picture snapping is kind of limited. When my son was born 3 years ago, I got a decent Canon Digital E and vowed that I would have a billion pictures of my son. My first photo project was a picture album I made of him from his first day on earth, until he turned 1 and has his first ice cream. I made albums for a few family members and people seemed to like them. I then got into shooting flowers, and pets. Mostly at the park while they were interacting with the environment.

I am looking into taking the step into DSLR because photography has become a serious hobby, that I will fully invest a lot of time into. I live in a small community, and people are always asking me about making a "photo CD" for them. I figured that I had a small market for some minor photo gigs.
I need a lot of practice though.

evoryware · June 21, 2007

My first question is where are you paying $1599 for that 30d combo
because I see it for $1399-$1450 w/ tax and shipping?

My first statement is the XTI is a very nice body. I like my XTI also and am looking at a 30D for a second body. I do sometimes have qualms about the noise at ISO 1600 but it is a great camera other than that.

I second ziggy on reworking your lens selection.

To learn on you don't NEED an 18-55, but it will let you know pretty quick what lenses you want to buy to replace it. The 55-200 may be a range you want to experiment with but I didn't like any of the consumer lenses I tried (70-300; 55-200).

A lot of people told me when it was my turn to buy that the body doesn't matter as much. "Put the money on the lenses." This is because most lenses will work on other other bodies as you upgrade (30D, 5D, 1D). And they seem to resell better. The 10-22 won't work on the 5D or 1D.
Yes you need to start somewhere, but really reasearch the lenses before you jump in.

looking at your $1600+/- budget and you being new to SLR's, and knowing that once you start spending money on this SLR hobby, you probably won't stop...

I didn't have the patience and I had a wife to convince it was worth the money so I got the XTI w/ 18-55 and within a month of convincing, the 28-135, a few more months the 70-200 f2.8, and after spending thousands of dollars to "Experiment" now wish I had just went with a
24-70 f2.8L, 50 f1.4, and 70-200 f2.8L IS. :cry Hindsight is a .....
Funny thing is a person told me about this combo when I first started researching but I didn't have the foresight to understand it. 2 years later it's definitely been a great learning experience but I'm kicking myself in the head a little. From a $700 budget to over $3000 spent in less than a year.

30D
17-40 F4 L
$1700

XTI
70-300 IS
28-135 IS
$1630

XTI
17-40 F4 L
430EX Flash
$1550
add 50 f1.8 (will be 80mm on a 1.6 body)
$1620

XTI or 30D
24-70 F2.8L
$1728 & $2100

Other combos to consider.

When Ziggy was speaking of light I don't think he meant studio lighting set up. He was talking about generally optimizing the use of light be it sunlight, shade, flourescent light, tungsten light, flash. Paying attention to how light hits your subject.

Good luck!

edited a lil'...

Scott_Quier · June 21, 2007

This post probably contains way more information than you ever expected to get, but oh well (I tend to ramble a bit sometimes). I just hop you find something here helpful.

ob81 wrote:

I am looking into taking the step into DSLR because photography has become a serious hobby, that I will fully invest a lot of time into. I live in a small community, and people are always asking me about making a "photo CD" for them. I figured that I had a small market for some minor photo gigs.
I need a lot of practice though.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend you skip the consumer lenses and head straight for the higher quality glass. Over the long term, you will save a boat-load of money and increase your frustration level as well. Hear me - I went the "cheap" route and wasted a bit of $$. Remember, "Good equipment doesn't make a good photograph. But, often, good equipment makes a good photograph possible."

Pick a camera system (Canon, Nikon, etc). Once you choose and have started buying lenes in that system (or that are compatible with that system, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc) you are pretty much locked into unless you can afford to sell all your glass and re-invest in another, or invest in two systems at the same time. Glass for one system is rarely, if ever, compatible with another (Ford parts seldom fit on a Chevy

).

Anyway, pick a system. Then get the best glass you can possibly afford. If you buy a lens that you later don't need/want, you won't loose much on the transaction - good glass tends to keep it's value.

Buy the camera body you need today. Don't buy for long-term future requirements. By the time you get to that distant point in the future, the camera technology will have made dramatic improvements.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a wonderful lens for most work with people. It will also do a decent (not wonderful) job at close focusing. It is a very good "walking around" lens. I have one and it's the first lens I think about using for most of the work I do.

ob81 wrote:

I have learned that the "F/2.8" portion is very important, and lens seem to get cheaper as this number raises.

Here is a link to a page that does a decent job of describing the lens aperture and it's significance. After reading that, you will begin to understand the reason why lenses with larger apertures (smaller f-stop numbers) are more expensive.

Some books to consider:

Posing for Portrait Photography: A Head-to-Toe Guide (Jeff Smith)
ISBN-10: 1584281340
ISBN-13: 978-1584281344

Understanding Exposure (Bryan Peterson)
# ISBN-10: 0817463003
# ISBN-13: 978-0817463007

ob81 · June 21, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

This post probably contains way more information than you ever expected to get, but oh well (I tend to ramble a bit sometimes). I just hop you find something here helpful.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend you skip the consumer lenses and head straight for the higher quality glass. Over the long term, you will save a boat-load of money and increase your frustration level as well. Hear me - I went the "cheap" route and wasted a bit of $$. Remember, "Good equipment doesn't make a good photograph. But, often, good equipment makes a good photograph possible."

Pick a camera system (Canon, Nikon, etc). Once you choose and have started buying lenes in that system (or that are compatible with that system, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc) you are pretty much locked into unless you can afford to sell all your glass and re-invest in another, or invest in two systems at the same time. Glass for one system is rarely, if ever, compatible with another (Ford parts seldom fit on a Chevy ).

Anyway, pick a system. Then get the best glass you can possibly afford. If you buy a lens that you later don't need/want, you won't loose much on the transaction - good glass tends to keep it's value.

Buy the camera body you need today. Don't buy for long-term future requirements. By the time you get to that distant point in the future, the camera technology will have made dramatic improvements.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a wonderful lens for most work with people. It will also do a decent (not wonderful) job at close focusing. It is a very good "walking around" lens. I have one and it's the first lens I think about using for most of the work I do.

Here is a link to a page that does a decent job of describing the lens aperture and it's significance. After reading that, you will begin to understand the reason why lenses with larger apertures (smaller f-stop numbers) are more expensive.

Some books to consider:

Posing for Portrait Photography: A Head-to-Toe Guide (Jeff Smith)
ISBN-10: 1584281340
ISBN-13: 978-1584281344

Understanding Exposure (Bryan Peterson)
# ISBN-10: 0817463003
# ISBN-13: 978-0817463007

Woah, that link you posted is great. Had to book mark it. That Price for the 30D was for a kit with mem card and bag. I read up that most of the stuff I won't need though so I should buy it separate.
The "What is Aperture" tuturial on the site you referenced more than convinced me that the EF-2 17-55mm f/2.8 is a credible start. You specifically mentioned "people" for this lens. The 17-200mm would help me with photographing what?

evoryware · June 21, 2007

ob81 wrote:

The 17-200mm would help me with photographing what?

70-200?

the bottom of this review should help address that question:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I've used this lens everywhere. It's very usable on my camera when I'm on vacation whether at the beach, on a trek, at the zoo, an airshow, at a sporting event (I'd guess up to about 250ft you can still fill a frame with players) or taking a 3/4 length to headshot portrait in my home. Say at a Yankees game, if I was at 300 FT or bleachers, it would be better to have the 100-400mm on a 1.6 crop body.

I wasn't close but her body more than filled the frame:

or I could back out to 70mm

because it's fast (f2.8) and focuses very quick, I trust it. Knowing what I can do with my 18-55kit lens and 28-135 IS do at f5.6, I highly doubt I would have been able to get these shots too look like this at ISO 1600 at f5.6 on the 55-200mm as they were moving. The shutter speed would have been slower and handheld I think they would have come out blurry.

ob81 · June 21, 2007

Ok. Getting Close
Strongly leaning towards the Canon 30D with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.
I see both on Amazon for $1,986.

I figure I will start with this configuration if the price is decent.
Now. What would I lose if I went with the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi?

Also, is there a built in flash on the 30D? Or do I need to purchase a flash now (if there is one built in I will experiment with it)?

I learned more today about cameras than I ever have. Damn this is exciting.

ob81 · June 21, 2007

evoryware wrote:

70-200?

the bottom of this review should help address that question:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I've used this lens everywhere. It's very usable on my camera when I'm on vacation whether at the beach, on a trek, at the zoo, an airshow, at a sporting event (I'd guess up to about 250ft you can still fill a frame with players) or taking a 3/4 length to headshot portrait in my home. Say at a Yankees game, if I was at 300 FT or bleachers, it would be better to have the 100-400mm on a 1.6 crop body.

I wasn't close but her body more than filled the frame:

or I could back out to 70mm

because it's fast (f2.8) and focuses very quick, I trust it.
I highly doubt I would have been able to get these shots too look like this at ISO 1600 at f5.6 on the 55-200mm.

That bottom reveiw did help a lot and that picture is outstanding. I think I need IS though. I don't plan on using a tripod in my earlier ventures. I am aiming to get that 55-200mm range covered soon though.

evoryware · June 21, 2007

30d has a built in flash. I personally don't like pop-up flash and would rather a long exposure than using it. That's why I went with externals. Just search for tips on how to use it to minimize red eye, etc.
With the 30d you lose about $400 and dust cleaning but you gain spot metering, some size, a bit of speed (max shutter speed 1/8000), better high ISO performance, a 100,000 shutter durability rating and if I'm correct, the abilty to shoot RAW + M, and RAW + S jpeg.

YOu may want to try and find a camera store and hold them both.

claudermilk · June 22, 2007

You got lots of really good advice since last time I looked, I agree with it all. The body is not so much important as the lenses.

I will assume you are really seriously getting into photography for the long haul, in which case spending the bucks on good glass is worth the investment. I'll use my own thought processes for my lenses as an example.

First the UWA, Tokina's 12-24 f4. This is for my travel landscape shooting primarily. It's also a good lens for car shows in that you can get the whole car in frame in the crowded quarters typical of them--you also can get close enough that it's hard for oblivious people to walk in front of you.

I've also pressed the lens into service for persepctive-distortion shots for fun. I prefer this one over the Canon for the superior build and better price. Image quality is about the same. On lenses this wide, I wouldn't worry about fitting to a APS-H or FF body; once you move you can sell the lens and get a 16-35 since this is what they are replicating anyway.

Next, my mid-range zoom: Canon's 24-70 f2.8L. One of the most popular of the L range and with good reason. I use this mainly for smaller venue dance events; one in particular, which I most often shoot at, this focal range is perfect. I can go from full-body as 24mm to head-and-shoulders at 70mm. The fast f2.8 aperture helps shutter speeds in the crummy lighting I usually face. This lens is also pressed into service as my walkaround rather than spend antoher $1k on the 24-105/4L or the 17-55/2.8IS; it works well for me.

The telephoto lens is the 70-200 f2.8L. Finances and short notice (a loaner lens did not appear for a major yearly shoot, bam I need to buy a lens today. :dood Thank you Samy's--no tax sale & stock on hand today.

). Anyway, my use for this lens is about the same as what evoryware showed you--I have literally thousands of shots of stage shows like that. For mid-size theaters, it's perfect. I am also finding it just about fills the bill for zoo outings (with a 1.4 TC it should have enough reach). I have found the non-IS is amazingly sharp, better even than the several IS versions I've used over the past couple of years, and every bit as good as the non-IS f4 I used.

My last (actually first) purchased lens is the 50/1.8 Mk I. Once I discovered the kit lens was totally unusable in the coffee shop venue, I needed a better lens and didn't have the $1k available for what I relly wanted--the 24-70. For $150 I found the Mk I for sale, a new Mk II will run about $70-80. As cheap as the construction and pricetag is, these lenses are amazing. They are as sharp as a good L lens and worth every penny. It also is a good learning tool in that you aren't worried about what focal length to use--you're at 50mm (or about 84mm FOV on a APS-C body) and can concentrate on choosing aperture, shutter speed and composition with that view. I still drag it out on occasion. It makes for a good protrait lens as well.

Additional lenses I would like to add are Sigma's 120-300/2.8 to supplement the 70-200 for larger venues and extended range for wildlife shooting, and perhaps racing if I can get to some again. I'd also like either Sigma's 30/1.4 or Canon's 35/2L as a walkaround street-shooting lens; I choose this focal length because on APS-C bodies it's approximately the same FOV as the classic 50mm normal lens.

Anyway, I like to have a specific purpose in mind for a lens before buying it, not to just "fill a focal length gap." Yes, my line up happens to exactly cover 12mm through 200mm unbroken, but that's more of a happy coincidence than a deliberate selection. For example, if the Canon 100-400 were an f2.8 lens instead of f4.5-f5.6 I'd likely have gone for it instead of the 70-200 as it is, the lens is way too slow to do me any good.

For my midrange and telephoto zoom, I selected f2.8 lenses because I mainly use them in low light and need the speed, but also need the flexibility of a zoom, so I chose those two instead of some excellent primes like the 85/1.8 or 85/1.2, or the 135/2. Those still tempt me but don't suit my shooting style.

ob81 · June 23, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

You got lots of really good advice since last time I looked, I agree with it all. The body is not so much important as the lenses.

I will assume you are really seriously getting into photography for the long haul, in which case spending the bucks on good glass is worth the investment. I'll use my own thought processes for my lenses as an example.

First the UWA, Tokina's 12-24 f4. This is for my travel landscape shooting primarily. It's also a good lens for car shows in that you can get the whole car in frame in the crowded quarters typical of them--you also can get close enough that it's hard for oblivious people to walk in front of you. I've also pressed the lens into service for persepctive-distortion shots for fun. I prefer this one over the Canon for the superior build and better price. Image quality is about the same. On lenses this wide, I wouldn't worry about fitting to a APS-H or FF body; once you move you can sell the lens and get a 16-35 since this is what they are replicating anyway.

Next, my mid-range zoom: Canon's 24-70 f2.8L. One of the most popular of the L range and with good reason. I use this mainly for smaller venue dance events; one in particular, which I most often shoot at, this focal range is perfect. I can go from full-body as 24mm to head-and-shoulders at 70mm. The fast f2.8 aperture helps shutter speeds in the crummy lighting I usually face. This lens is also pressed into service as my walkaround rather than spend antoher $1k on the 24-105/4L or the 17-55/2.8IS; it works well for me.

The telephoto lens is the 70-200 f2.8L. Finances and short notice (a loaner lens did not appear for a major yearly shoot, bam I need to buy a lens today. :dood Thank you Samy's--no tax sale & stock on hand today. ). Anyway, my use for this lens is about the same as what evoryware showed you--I have literally thousands of shots of stage shows like that. For mid-size theaters, it's perfect. I am also finding it just about fills the bill for zoo outings (with a 1.4 TC it should have enough reach). I have found the non-IS is amazingly sharp, better even than the several IS versions I've used over the past couple of years, and every bit as good as the non-IS f4 I used.

My last (actually first) purchased lens is the 50/1.8 Mk I. Once I discovered the kit lens was totally unusable in the coffee shop venue, I needed a better lens and didn't have the $1k available for what I relly wanted--the 24-70. For $150 I found the Mk I for sale, a new Mk II will run about $70-80. As cheap as the construction and pricetag is, these lenses are amazing. They are as sharp as a good L lens and worth every penny. It also is a good learning tool in that you aren't worried about what focal length to use--you're at 50mm (or about 84mm FOV on a APS-C body) and can concentrate on choosing aperture, shutter speed and composition with that view. I still drag it out on occasion. It makes for a good protrait lens as well.

Additional lenses I would like to add are Sigma's 120-300/2.8 to supplement the 70-200 for larger venues and extended range for wildlife shooting, and perhaps racing if I can get to some again. I'd also like either Sigma's 30/1.4 or Canon's 35/2L as a walkaround street-shooting lens; I choose this focal length because on APS-C bodies it's approximately the same FOV as the classic 50mm normal lens.

Anyway, I like to have a specific purpose in mind for a lens before buying it, not to just "fill a focal length gap." Yes, my line up happens to exactly cover 12mm through 200mm unbroken, but that's more of a happy coincidence than a deliberate selection. For example, if the Canon 100-400 were an f2.8 lens instead of f4.5-f5.6 I'd likely have gone for it instead of the 70-200 as it is, the lens is way too slow to do me any good.

For my midrange and telephoto zoom, I selected f2.8 lenses because I mainly use them in low light and need the speed, but also need the flexibility of a zoom, so I chose those two instead of some excellent primes like the 85/1.8 or 85/1.2, or the 135/2. Those still tempt me but don't suit my shooting style.

Thanks. After reading the great input I got from here, and reading countless reveiws of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L, I decided that its better to go "L-series" if I want great shots and I won't be limited with bodies. The 24-70mm is only about $200 more also, so that helps.

I will also get a Canon 430EX. Probably 2x2GB mem card because I will be shooting in RAW + JPEG. I think I am all set. If I am missing something let me know!!

Thanks all for your help.

Ric Grupe · June 23, 2007

I

decided that its better to go "L-series" if I want great shots and I won't be limited with bodies. The 24-70mm

Just remember you won't be able to get true wide shots with this lens and a 1.6 FOVC camera.

"This lens certainly has the image quality to be an "L". "

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

ob81 · June 23, 2007

Yeah I checked that review out. I was looking at that lens hard initially. I am kind of torn between the two to be honest.

I know it will be one or the other. The "L" series comes with a lot of things that I may need like a hood (which I think is for shooting outdoors in sunlight??) and case.
These items are the items that I know the least about, ,and would be covered if I got the "L" series.
sigh. I will have a better point of veiw once I hold them both.

Ric Grupe · June 23, 2007

To me it's simple...

If I was getting a fullframe camera, like the 5D, I would get the 24-70.

If I was getting a 1.6 FOVC camera, like the 30D, I would get the 17-55. The 17-85 has IS and is no slouch at all. That's what I have because the 17-55 was not available at the time.

claudermilk · June 23, 2007

Well, I cannot fault the choice since that's what I have, and I am very happy with it.

On a crop camera the 24-70 is more like the FOV of a 38-112, so slightly wide to slightly telephoto. I think it's still a good, usable range for walkaround "normal view" shots. Good sharpness, excellent color, virtually distortion-free. The lens and hood are an ingenious setup in that the lens gets longer as you zoom to 24mm; the hood mounts just past the extending part, so the hood is always the optimum depth for the current focal length (short for 24mm, deep for 70mm).

For getting wide shots, I added the Tokina 12-24/4. It makes a nice mate to the 24-70. The next best choice (first-best in many others' opinion) is Canon's 10-22. I like the Tokina's build abd price better. Oh, and it comes with a nice lens hood as well, the Canon is an extra-cost addition.

squirl033 · June 24, 2007

i have the Canon 30D and am very happy with it. if you're still looking, you can get one from Adorama for a hair over $1000... that makes it only a couple of hundred more than the Rebel XTi, and you get some definite advantages with the 30D. whether to get Canon or Nikon is a personal preference, but when i got my 30D, it was widely regarded as the best in its class. the D200 from Nikon may offer some marginal (and likely invisible) advantage in some respects, but its list price is a couple hundred more than the 30D's was when it came out... if that matters...

Need help finding a great camera. :)

Comments