Options
Moving to FF! (5D Mk II) : How to spend lens budget?
Dknelson728
Registered Users Posts: 15 Big grins
Hey guys!
I decided recently to switch systems from Nikon to Canon. This is due in part, to the large number of close friends and co-workers of mine that shoot with Canon based systems, and also partially as a result of my desire to learn the other side of things after using a Canon system for a few weeks and enjoying the experience immensely.
Here's where I'm at currently; I've decided on a 5D Mk II, as it's a good compromise of all of the things I want in a camera (high resolution, the capability to do video when I eventually get into it, full frame, and of course the fact that it fits my price range well.) I've got one that's headed to me shortly, which just leaves me trying to figure out what lenses to go with.
I shoot primarily portraits, mostly of the senior and head-shot variety, but also dabble in small weddings too. I'm also finding myself getting in to more candid, street photography.
As of now, I have two set-ups in mind, and was hoping for some insight.
1. 17-40 f/4L, 50mm 1.8 EF II, and either an 85 f/1.8 USM or a 100 f/2 USM
OR
2. 24-105 f/4L, 50mm 1.8 EF II
Obviously the top option is going to be a few hundred dollars more expensive, but ultimately I'm just looking for the most viable solution for my needs for around $1200 or less.
Thanks guys!
I decided recently to switch systems from Nikon to Canon. This is due in part, to the large number of close friends and co-workers of mine that shoot with Canon based systems, and also partially as a result of my desire to learn the other side of things after using a Canon system for a few weeks and enjoying the experience immensely.
Here's where I'm at currently; I've decided on a 5D Mk II, as it's a good compromise of all of the things I want in a camera (high resolution, the capability to do video when I eventually get into it, full frame, and of course the fact that it fits my price range well.) I've got one that's headed to me shortly, which just leaves me trying to figure out what lenses to go with.
I shoot primarily portraits, mostly of the senior and head-shot variety, but also dabble in small weddings too. I'm also finding myself getting in to more candid, street photography.
As of now, I have two set-ups in mind, and was hoping for some insight.
1. 17-40 f/4L, 50mm 1.8 EF II, and either an 85 f/1.8 USM or a 100 f/2 USM
OR
2. 24-105 f/4L, 50mm 1.8 EF II
Obviously the top option is going to be a few hundred dollars more expensive, but ultimately I'm just looking for the most viable solution for my needs for around $1200 or less.
Thanks guys!
0
Comments
As for weddings, I would be lost without a standard zoom. I still use the rather ancient Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8L USM and I won't replace it until it dies. I can't really recommend that lens because Canon no longer repairs them. (Third-party repairs should still be available, however.)
My favorite head-shot and head-and-shoulders lens, for a FF body, is by far the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. Bokeh quality and DOF control is just awesome with that lens.
Do remember to budget for a decent electronic flash and some flash modifiers. You can easily DIY the flash modifiers for $3USD each.
A couple that I can recommend are:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/908195739C4C0D3
http://abetterbouncecard.com/
Joe Demb also makes an interesting device for sale (reasonable):
http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/
I own a FlipIt product and it works well and is very well made.
A site showing various modifiers in use:
http://www.the-meissners.org/2006-small-albums/2006-flashmod/index.html
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'll certainly look into the 50 1.4!
Thoughts on something like the 24-105 for a wedding? (Paired with some external lighting sources and a back up body of some form of course.)
And any experience with the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 in comparison to that EF 135?
There are many wedding photographers using the EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM for wedding work. I have read that, in particular, the Canon 5D MKII has some difficulty with that lens and in low light, except for the center AF dot, which is fairly good. If you should decide on that lens I highly recommend using a flash with a decent AF assist light. It makes a tremendous difference.
The EF 85mm, f1.8 USM and EF 100mm, f2 USM are more similar than different and they are very nice lenses, optically and functionally. Neither has the crispness of the EF 135mm, f2L USM and neither can match the bokeh. All are capable of professional results.
Very nice reviews for all of these lenses at these sites:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos (See the 100mm, f2 on crop body review)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Welcome to Canon. I agree with your decision to switch. I'm not a big landscaper, so whenever I imagine myself as a D300 or D700 owner, I see no upgrade path with Nikon for now. I don't need or want to deal with 36mp, 12mp is looking small these days, and I don't have 6-large lying around for a D4.
Based on the above comment about weddings I'd like to steer you towards the 24-70/2.8L and a couple relatively cheap primes (35/2, 85/1.8). However, the value of the discounted 5D2 + 24-105L kit cannot be denied, especially when starting from scratch. Take a hard look at that and do the math. If money were no object, you'd be asking about the 5D3, but you're not. So the 24-105 kit is probably your best bet. Besides, shooting below 24-28mm isn't usually good when people are involved, so I don't think you'd get a lot of use out of the 17-40.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My only issue currently is, as you touched on, price. I can get into a Mk II with a 24-105 for right around $2300, from what my research shows at least. That's definitely in my price range. From there, I still have enough to invest in a grip and external flash, which are both things that are fairly important to me. Alternatively, I could just start with a Mk II body and a 24-70, and add other pieces over time as funds permit. (Likely adding the 85 1.8 and a flash within the next 2 months.) Obviously this is a lot of personal preference thats up to me to decide on, but given those options, what do you feel makes the most sense?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Both the 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are great lenses, even if they don't match the magic of the 135L (nothing does!). I personally preferred the 100 both for the reach, and because it was sharper at f2 than the 85 at 1.8; you won't go wrong with either, though.
For portraits, I'd be lost without my 2.8 lenses - if you can possibly go that route, I would try. Is the grip an essential? The 5dII is a pretty substantial body even without it.....
That's a good point, and to be fair, I don't have a reason as to why not. Sounds like that may be the route to go!
There's a few kits floating around eBay and my local area's CL for $2,400 for sure. I've got a bid in on one now at just shy of $2300, though as they usually do, I'm sure it'll erupt as we get closer to the end of the auction. Reputable overall though. One of the kits from CL is from a nearby photo studio that I'm very familiar with and have done business with previously.
I love love LOVE the idea of the 135, just for everything it has to offer (I did a couple of hours of checking out shots with it), but for the price and my budget currently, a 100 or 85 is much more viable. I could live without a grip, but after shooting with one for the last 9 months on my D7000, I've become very accustomed to having it there for my use, both for the portrait orientation mode and the additional size in the hand.
I can see getting 2 (maybe 3) good lenses and a flash, but a grip is pushing it unless its a 3rd party grip
I know you had mentioned the 50 1.4 previously, Overfocused. Being in the situation I am (primarily portraiture and some wedding), what 2 or maybe 3 lenses and flash would that be?
I can see getting 2 good lenses and a flash, but a grip is pushing it unless its a 3rd party grip. For your bread and butter, I wouldn't compromise in IQ and build on what focal length(s) you need the most. If bust-length portrait is a majority of your work, I'd buy the Canon 135 F2, and a 3rd party 24-70 or 28-70mm lens to cover the weddings and side stuff.
Something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05
I bet you could shop around and find it for a bit less new, (or used for $150-200 less) and afford a flash with good batteries out of that. I'd forget the grip for now. If you're desperate for one though, you can get a 3rd party grip in the meantime for $40-80. I got one from China and it worked extremely well for years and I even sold my MKII with it.
As for a good affordable flash and batteries, I can highly recommend what I used for 2 years on a MKII (and am using now on the MKIII)
This flash: http://www.sunpak.jp/english/products/pz42x/index.html (PZ42XC for Canon)
Plus these batteries: http://www.amazon.com/Maha-Imedion-Discharge-Batteries-Sixteen/dp/B00478VMT4
These AA batteries are the best low self discharge AAs available on the market for high output applications such as flash. Also, they have a 2700mAH version that isn't low self discharge, and are better if you're using them within a week or two from charging. Since I typically only need 1/4 to 1/16th power, I haven't recharged my flash batteries for weeks (Ive used it for key lighting 5 or 6 sessions and recycle time isnt noticeably slower yet) I don't use mine on a scheduled basis either, so sometimes I'll even go a month without using my flash. LSD batteries have been an awesome thing for me personally since it prevents drained batteries in those emergency moments, but if you're always shooting the high capacity would be better for you. They'd do an amazing job in the grips with AA cartridge adapters.
This is such a huge help. Particularly with the flash and batteries. I just used a Nikon SB800 on my D7000 with some standard rechargeable batteries, and I can definitely relate to the scenario of drained batteries in an emergency. So I suppose to start, I should just be looking for a well priced body with low shutter clicks in good condition, then start hunting down deals on some of the suggested lenses here .
I believe that's the value of a used kit through Adorama. That's what they told me when I thought about trading mine in for a 5DM3. But they only pay 70% of that, so the math just didn't work out for me and the upgrade.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I missed that you were buying used, and the only new kit I saw looked like it was from dubious sources! Sounds like you're good to go
I started out with an 85 1.8, sold it to buy the 100 for the extra reach, then sold that to buy the 135L (and then eventually bought another 85 1.8 to round out my 50/85/135 prime setup). You'll be fine with the 85/100 and can pick up the 135 in due course.
On a crop sensor, I do use my 50mm for portraits, but mainly indoors where I don't have space to use the 85 and 135 (and even then, I do use both of those for tight shots, despite my teeny-tiny space). Outdoors, I use the two longer lenses all the time.
Point being... on FF, I suspect you'll use the 85/100 more than the 50, especially if you wind up with a 2.8 standard zoom.
Btw, there's a new kid on the block for a 24-70 2.8: Tamron has released one with IS. Price is still a little high, although I'm betting it will drop once it's more readily available. Initial reviews aren't bad at all.
ETA:
The Tamron 28-70 is a great lens, but might not be so hot for weddings as it doesn't always focus fast (or silently) in low light. I have the 17-50 sister-lens which I adore, but there's no doubt that Canon's USM (or the 3rd-party manufacturer's equivalents) is faster and quieter. Big shout out for the IQ on the Tamron lenses, though - it's exceptional.
Im thinking I'll just start with the 85 and go from there, but the image results from the 135 are just making me drool uncontrollably. May have to make an early investment..
I'm seeing outstanding reviews for the 28-75 all across the board, which has mostly convinced me to pick up that as a general walk-around, likely over the 17-40L that I was previously considering.
The idea of the additional reach for candids coupled with how sharp and fast the 135 performs is really making it a top contender for me.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Hmmm, I thought the 85/1.8 would be next on my list, what are your thoughts on it?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Isn't that just a common characteristic of all fast primes? My 35L has it wide open. DPP takes care of it, or just stop down a tad.
I was thinking I'd get the 85/1.8 and shoot it at f/2 to mitigate most of the fringing. A 100/2 would need to be shot at f/2.2, and that's just too slow.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Weird, the 85/1.8 seems to have such a great reputation. Does DPP take care of it all?
Things seem quite nice by f/2.8 here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
and even f/2.0 shows a noticeable improvement. Got any samples?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
These were taken by different copies of the lens, btw.
F 2.2 (100% crop from larger shot)
f 2.0 Click here for full size - you'll see green halos around the highlights in the water behind her, and pretty noticeable purple fringing on the sticks in front.
if you go the zoom route the 17-40 or 24-70 2.8 are good choices but if I shot weddings and portraits one of the 70-200 2.8 lens would be also be on my list
Thanks for this information about the flash. I have been thinking of getting a separate flash for my D90. I wouldn't use it very often and I have been hesitant about spending the $$$ for the NIkon SB700 or SB910. Specs on this one seem to indicate I would get much of the functionality of the SB700 for less than half the price.
Question about the batteries: Can I use these with my existing NiMH chargers (8 hr, 4 hr) or do I need a special charger. I don't want to get pricy batteries and fry them the first time I try to charge them.
Thanks.
Personally, if I were you I'd get a new charger for best charge rate + ability to keep all future NiMH batteries you buy alive as long as possible. Unless its a universal charger, its probably best to get a new one. In my experience, a lot of name brand chargers have been picky on what brand batteries you can use with them since they don't have the ability to measure the capacities of unknown batteries. Like, I had a Sony charger that wouldn't charge anything but Sony batteries. I have a GP Recyko charger that wont charge Sanyo Eneloops, even though both brands use the same kind of battery technology. It is a PITA. (I only have the GP Recyko charger cause it was free with a set of their batteries) So, unless your charger can calculate what the battery can hold and divide that into 4 or 8 hours, the 4 hour and 8 hour charge modes are both based on whatever batteries came with your charger.
Speaking of charge rate, its recommended to charge a NiMH battery to full capacity in 2-3 hours at the fastest to keep maximum longevity. Charging the 2400 mAH Maha batteries at a rate of 1000mAH (1 amp) is what the factory sets their non-rapid chargers at, and works out extremely well. You can of course charge them faster, but that's best left for emergencies or tight schedules since if you do it too much it will reduce the overall recharges you get out of that set.
Depending on your needs, any of these chargers are of the most excellent quality. They will work with all future NiMH batteries of compatible size, and will give you the most life out of each battery:
http://www.mahaenergy.com/store/listcategoriesandproducts.asp?idcategory=11
The 8 slot charger is definitely most convenient and has most capacity, and I'd recommend it to anyone who doesn't care to get super technical about charging their batteries. I'm technically picky, so for my personal preference, I wanted my charger to have as many features as possible for reconditioning and capacity measurement. I use the MH-C9000. I've never run into a situation where I need to charge 8 batteries at a time though, so its been fine. Any 4 I drain can typically recharge before I even drain the next 4. I also have 16 batteries so it takes awhile to drain them all anyway
Plenty of websites sell these chargers for $50, so don't buy them from Maha directly if you decide to get one, lol. Any of them will be the last AA/AAA charger you'll ever need for as long as it will function.