@cbetta D90 came out #1 in my low-end choice and 5D was top in my medium-end category. I'm thinking to invest a bit more in the back and save on glasses since the 5D has a bigger cell
@jyri: The 5D has no built-in flash. It does have a great ISO range, but still not useable for casual photography. My wife chose the 50D instead, which can use inexpensive S- lenses. With her 18-200 zoom, she has a very useful setup.
@jyri General advice usually is to spend more on glass and swap out backs every couple of years. A 450D or 50D with proper L glass will shoot spectacular pictures (and probably be a bit more portable than a 5D body) and after you've worn that out you can always upgrade to a 5DMkIII.
IMHO Your friends are the best way to decide between the two. Glass is expensive, so if you want some good lenses that you'll only use occasionally, buy a camera with the same mount as your friends, then you can share the cost of any extras you might want.
While I'm on the Nikon side of the fence (and truly love my D90), if I were buying starting from now, I'd probably go for the 5DII.
From what I know, the big thing to bear in mind is that the kit lenses on the canon side are awful, so avoid them, buy body-only, and target the actual lenses you want. The Nikon kit lenses are noticibly better.
As well as lenses, budget for a decent external flash unit - makes a world of difference.
@claes A 5DMkII with a 50mm f/1.4 lens on ISO 1600 should be very usable for casual photography. Heck, my el cheapo 350D with 50mm f/1.8 is already pretty usable.
Great advice. Admittedly one of the reasons I liked D90 & 5DII was the video feature.
I used to shoot lots of video and have a decent DV setup, but it's too much hassle to carry around at conferences etc. so I'm really excited by the ability to shoot short interviews with the same camera I use for taking photos.
@malach Back when I was shooting more (before digital), I was a Canon boy... but I played around with the D90 and loved it, and almost bought it on the spot. That's a sweet camera. Nikon's come a long way.
I bought mine without having seen one in the flesh.... but I already had a decent investment in glass, and was very much after "the same but more" (I already had the D70).
(I had read a bunch of reviews, so I wasn't completely blind).
In my film days, I was a Pentax boy, with an elderly KX - with a built in light meter! Digital got me shooting again, after years of being too broke (or cheap) to buy film and processing :)
With the D90, the video is a lot better with a VR (that's IS, in canon terms - Vibration Reduction vs Image Stabilisation, IIRC) lens - I imagine the same applies with the 5D MkII.
I agree with @cbetta. The real expense in a DSLR system is in the lenses, not the camera body. Both Canon and Nikon have very good lens options available. My preference has been to Canon's lens system (particularly with their superteles), and as such I use Canon DSLRs (now a 1Ds Mark III, upgraded from the Mark II upgraded from the original Mark I). Nikon has made some strong advances in low-light sensitivity, but the D90 doesn't include the more recent advances they've made. The 5Dm2 has very good low-light sensitivity as well, full frame sensor, and the movie mode. But on the other hand, image size is twice the size of that from the D90, which can be a drawback from a storage management perspective especially when you consider that most images end up in electronic dissemination these days instead of prints -- never mind huge poster size prints. So while the extra detail is nice, it definitely has a hefty penalty to it as well unless you plan to regularly print 24"x36" or larger.
I will also offer tip #2: regardless of which camera you buy, set it to RAW mode and pretend it doesn't even support writing JPEGs. With photo management tools like Aperture or Lightroom, you can handle RAWs as seamlessly as any other image type and with much greater control options for how the image gets processed. But again, RAWs will result in larger image files, and will be that much more storage intensive with the 5Dm2...
The final test. Walk into a store. Ask the clerk to bring out the two cameras you are considering. Put them next to each other. Close your eyes, pick up camera one and with your eyes closed put it on an take a picture. Still with your eyes closed, put camera one down and pick up camera two and put it on and take a picture. The camera that feels most natural to put on and take a picture with without looking att any dials, buttons etc is the best camera for you.
Might sound silly - but when you're in the dark, or in a location where you can't stand fiddleing with you camera you'll be grateful for choosing the device that is most "natural" to you.
PS. The clerk will freak out. And you'll have a laugh looking att the shots.
@morris - IM(NS)HO, that's bullshit. All interfaces (except, possibly, the nipple) are learned. So-called "intuitive" interfaces are just ones that are closer to the paradigms we've learned in the past.
@jyri: My wife is very practical and doesn't want to carry a trunk with accessories, flashes, lenses etc with her. She just want to grab her camera and use it. The reasons for choosing the lesser 50D was its weight and size, the built-in flash, the abillity to use inexpensive S-lenses (as well as her old ones) and some other non-tech issues. She is well aware that there always will be people choosing the 5D mkii for technical reasons, but that's not her thing.
Myself, I chose my pocket camera (Leica) very untechnical by measuring how fast it was from its off position in a trouser pocket to a pic taken. As a father of three, I'll have to be quick not to miss those special moments. I really, really, really loathed my Nokia N95 which took several minutes just preparing to take a picture.
@malach: I disagree on that it is bullshit - but I totally agree on the rest of your statement. When choosing devices one usually forgets to place value in previously learned interfaces (or interfaces "closer to the paradigms we've learned in the past"). The "blind test" is to put aside all "brandenhanced" desire and choose the interface that is "best" for you. I didn't say "intuitive interface"... :-)
@malach: Yes and no... There is the interface, but there is something to be said for the overall feel as well, which is what I think @morris was trying to get at. The grip styles on different cameras vary a bit, which can affect the comfort depending on your hand size. This is one reason I'd never use either the D90 or the 5Dm2 -- they aren't full size camera bodies. With my gorilla hands, I find the grips very uncomfortable unless you add the extra battery(or now WiFi transmitter) grips to these bodies. The 2/3rds frame bodies also do not balance as well as full-sized bodies when using heavy glass.
But you are absolutely right about the interface part. When I got the 1Ds Mark III, it drove me nuts because instinct/kinetic memory knew the Mark II/Mark II (which are near enough the same as to be identical for these purposes) and I kept reaching for buttons that didn't exist. I've grown more accustomed to the Mark III interface now, but in the thick of it, the Mark II/I instinct still bubbles up. That is really my single biggest complaint about the Mark IIIs -- they changed the interface without providing a significant bonus for doing so.
I absolutely love my 50mm f/1.4, and my f/1.8 85mm comes a close second, but given that they're primes, you're a little limited for "walking around" type photography, so I'd also recommend something that goes from Wide to Long, for those days you just want to take the body and one lens - my all-purpose lens is the 18-105, which gives me lots of flexibility for most situations.
@jyri: By that list, sounds like you're looking at the Canon lenses. If you mean the Nikon versions, then disregard as I've never shot the Nikkors. The Canon 50 f/1.4 is a very good lens, and heavily used. Even the 50 f/1.8 is good, but for the extra price difference, get the f/1.4. Stay away from the f/1.2 -- it's a niche product lens and actually worse than the f/1.4 for anything other than shooting at f/1.2 for an extremely narrow depth of field.
The 85 f/1.8 is also a well regarded lens. The 85 f/1.2, however, is a blow the doors off stunningly phenomenal lens (and the recent Mark II version is supposedly even better than the original (which I own)). There is a massive price difference between the two, though, not to mention size and weight. The 135 f/2 is also an extremely good lens, and the compression effect you get at 135 is very nice for head shots. But that's mainly what I use my 135 for -- as a prime that distance is awkward for more general use. If I'm doing general mid-range work, I prefer my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.
Between the 17-40 and the 16-35, go with the 16-35 (Mark II version). The 16-35 is a great lens, and having f/2.8 is really noticeable over an f/4 lens. And that extra mm on the wide side may sound like "just 1 mm", but when you get down into that range, it's a huge difference in perspective. I would very strongly recommend testing this lens in a shop with the body you end up choosing before buying it, though. Wide angle lenses are a lot of fun to play with, but are not everyone's cup o' brew...
As @malach says, though, you might want to look into something of an 'all around' lens to start with. I personally use the older 28-70 f/2.8 (the current model is the 24-70 f/2.8), but that is again expensive, large and heavy by most people's standards. I know several people that use the 28-135 IS lens for their general 'walk-about' lens. That's a lot cheaper, smaller, and lighter. But it's also a lot slower, being f/3.5-5.6. So if you plan to do a lot of indoor low-light stuff, it wouldn't be the best choice.
@jyri: I am @N03/">cwichura on Flickr, but there isn't all that much there. A lot of what I shoot isn't posted online (no model release for public display, etc). The recent figurine shots are with the Canon 180mm macro lens (and the lighting setup shots for those are with the Canon 14mm). The birds are with the Canon 800mm, the zoo shots mostly with the Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS, though some were with the 70-200. The club photos will primarily be a mix of the 28-70 and the 14mm, but also some with the 70-200.
One thing I will point out on the 85 f/1.2 is that it is a very slow lens to focus. I am talking glacially slow. The new Mark II released last year is faster from what I've read, but still very slow compared to most lenses (and optically, about the same as the Mark I hence why I don't see the need to upgrade mine). I only use my 85 for studio work, where the focusing speed isn't an issue and the very long throw of the focusing ring is actually a blessing for manual focus work. But if you're looking to do fast moving shots of your kid indoors, the focusing speed on the 85 might be an issue.
In its own perverse way the fixed 50 mm is a very versatile lens. It's light, small, and lets in a lot of light (talking specifically about the Canon 1.4). The versatility comes from its very neutral focal length – you can't mess with it, so it's always right. Or then you need to step closer or farther away.
I'd argue that the 50 mm is in no way a silly purchase, even though the 24-80L can pretty much cover for it. Anyway, it all depends on your needs: where are you shooting? What/who are you shooting? What's your style, laconic, exaggerating? If you're shooting indoors, wide angle can be good. Then again if you don't like flashes, that extra stop can be very useful. If you want to max the silly, go wide. Etc.
Also, a comment about testing lenses in a (reputable) camera shop: TAKE YOUR OWN MEMORY CARD (better yet, your own camera body -- but you don't have the body yet so this complicates things). While in the shop you will get a feel for the size and weight and focus response times of the lens (and focusing will be affected in part by the camera body, which is why you want to use the body you intend to actually use), you cannot get a real sense for the image quality of the lens by chimping a 2 or 3 inch display on the back of the camera. So you need to bring the photos home with you and really look at them on a proper display. (Or bring your laptop along with you to review them there in the store.)
When choosing lenses, think first what you are shooting. For allaround shooting the 24-105L f4.0 is very good lens. I have been using that lens with my 5DMkII. The quality is exellent even with fullframe. 50mm 1.4 is also worth buying for the really lowlight situations.
The video quality of 5DMKII is superb. 5DMKII captures fullHD-video. The handling is little tricky when shooting video. The body is more designed for stillshooting, but interviews or other similar situations are ok.
There is a new book about photographing with Canon DSLR:s. It might be helpfull when choosing equippement.
on Canon: I've got the f4/24-105L and it's a good lens, albeit bit frustrating on low light. The f1.4/50mm is perfect, pretty much the only lens I use.
5D MkII is a full frame, so go and try out both 50mm & 85mm and see how you like them. In any case one good prime and one general tele is a good starting point. You'll know how they are for you after couple of hundred frames :)
Here's my personal wishlist of lenses based on all the feedback and advice so far:
wide
16-35mm f/2.8 Mk II version (blur issue at +20mm?)
all around
24-70mm f/2.8 (best all around but heavy)
50mm f/1.4 (great all around, superb low light)
portrait
85mm f/1.2 Mk II version (best for portraits)
135mm f/2 (amazing portraits)
tele
70-200 f/2.8L IS zoom (must for shooting people from afar)
I ended up getting the 5D Mk II back and starting with the 24-70mm f/2.8 glass. I'm anticipating to add more objectives as need arises. It'll be interesting to see if my sentiments change after I start shooting.
Thanks to everyone on this thread so far -- I owe you guys some decent photos :D
@jyri The 50mm f/1.4 also doubles as a great though somewhat wide portrait lens (I like to get up pretty close).
And the 24-70 sounds like a great choice. That should give you about equivalent range to my 17-50 crop which has worked out great for me so far.
52 comments so far
quite a bit of difference between those 2. Are you sure you decided on the kind of camera you want? D90 is a bit entry level in comparison to the 5DM2
10 months, 3 weeks ago by cbetta
most of my camera friends who use canon or nikon use canon, if that's any help
10 months, 3 weeks ago by termie
??? That's like saying "most people in the world use Windows, if it's any help" .........
10 months, 3 weeks ago by cbetta
@cbetta D90 came out #1 in my low-end choice and 5D was top in my medium-end category. I'm thinking to invest a bit more in the back and save on glasses since the 5D has a bigger cell
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
tip #1 I will give you and most people with a DSLR will give you: buy lenses, not bodies
10 months, 3 weeks ago by cbetta
@jyri: The 5D has no built-in flash. It does have a great ISO range, but still not useable for casual photography. My wife chose the 50D instead, which can use inexpensive S- lenses. With her 18-200 zoom, she has a very useful setup.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by claes
@jyri General advice usually is to spend more on glass and swap out backs every couple of years. A 450D or 50D with proper L glass will shoot spectacular pictures (and probably be a bit more portable than a 5D body) and after you've worn that out you can always upgrade to a 5DMkIII.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by alper
IMHO Your friends are the best way to decide between the two. Glass is expensive, so if you want some good lenses that you'll only use occasionally, buy a camera with the same mount as your friends, then you can share the cost of any extras you might want.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by RickMeasham
While I'm on the Nikon side of the fence (and truly love my D90), if I were buying starting from now, I'd probably go for the 5DII.
From what I know, the big thing to bear in mind is that the kit lenses on the canon side are awful, so avoid them, buy body-only, and target the actual lenses you want. The Nikon kit lenses are noticibly better.
As well as lenses, budget for a decent external flash unit - makes a world of difference.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by malach
@claes A 5DMkII with a 50mm f/1.4 lens on ISO 1600 should be very usable for casual photography. Heck, my el cheapo 350D with 50mm f/1.8 is already pretty usable.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by alper
talk to our old friend @keltanen about bodies and lenses; he goes on about this at length :-)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by beep
Great advice. Admittedly one of the reasons I liked D90 & 5DII was the video feature.
I used to shoot lots of video and have a decent DV setup, but it's too much hassle to carry around at conferences etc. so I'm really excited by the ability to shoot short interviews with the same camera I use for taking photos.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
Well, I have the d90, and I've played with the video... and my advise to go with the 5d stands doubly tall now :)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by malach
@claes what do you mean by the 5D being 'still not useable for casual photography'?
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
@malach Back when I was shooting more (before digital), I was a Canon boy... but I played around with the D90 and loved it, and almost bought it on the spot. That's a sweet camera. Nikon's come a long way.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
I bought mine without having seen one in the flesh.... but I already had a decent investment in glass, and was very much after "the same but more" (I already had the D70).
(I had read a bunch of reviews, so I wasn't completely blind).
In my film days, I was a Pentax boy, with an elderly KX - with a built in light meter! Digital got me shooting again, after years of being too broke (or cheap) to buy film and processing :)
With the D90, the video is a lot better with a VR (that's IS, in canon terms - Vibration Reduction vs Image Stabilisation, IIRC) lens - I imagine the same applies with the 5D MkII.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by malach
I agree with @cbetta. The real expense in a DSLR system is in the lenses, not the camera body. Both Canon and Nikon have very good lens options available. My preference has been to Canon's lens system (particularly with their superteles), and as such I use Canon DSLRs (now a 1Ds Mark III, upgraded from the Mark II upgraded from the original Mark I). Nikon has made some strong advances in low-light sensitivity, but the D90 doesn't include the more recent advances they've made. The 5Dm2 has very good low-light sensitivity as well, full frame sensor, and the movie mode. But on the other hand, image size is twice the size of that from the D90, which can be a drawback from a storage management perspective especially when you consider that most images end up in electronic dissemination these days instead of prints -- never mind huge poster size prints. So while the extra detail is nice, it definitely has a hefty penalty to it as well unless you plan to regularly print 24"x36" or larger.
I will also offer tip #2: regardless of which camera you buy, set it to RAW mode and pretend it doesn't even support writing JPEGs. With photo management tools like Aperture or Lightroom, you can handle RAWs as seamlessly as any other image type and with much greater control options for how the image gets processed. But again, RAWs will result in larger image files, and will be that much more storage intensive with the 5Dm2...
10 months, 3 weeks ago by CAW
The final test. Walk into a store. Ask the clerk to bring out the two cameras you are considering. Put them next to each other. Close your eyes, pick up camera one and with your eyes closed put it on an take a picture. Still with your eyes closed, put camera one down and pick up camera two and put it on and take a picture. The camera that feels most natural to put on and take a picture with without looking att any dials, buttons etc is the best camera for you.
Might sound silly - but when you're in the dark, or in a location where you can't stand fiddleing with you camera you'll be grateful for choosing the device that is most "natural" to you.
PS. The clerk will freak out. And you'll have a laugh looking att the shots.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by morris
@morris - IM(NS)HO, that's bullshit. All interfaces (except, possibly, the nipple) are learned. So-called "intuitive" interfaces are just ones that are closer to the paradigms we've learned in the past.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by malach
@jyri: My wife is very practical and doesn't want to carry a trunk with accessories, flashes, lenses etc with her. She just want to grab her camera and use it. The reasons for choosing the lesser 50D was its weight and size, the built-in flash, the abillity to use inexpensive S-lenses (as well as her old ones) and some other non-tech issues. She is well aware that there always will be people choosing the 5D mkii for technical reasons, but that's not her thing.
Myself, I chose my pocket camera (Leica) very untechnical by measuring how fast it was from its off position in a trouser pocket to a pic taken. As a father of three, I'll have to be quick not to miss those special moments. I really, really, really loathed my Nokia N95 which took several minutes just preparing to take a picture.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by claes
@claes +1 on Leica's astounded way of being speedy out-of-pocket-to-pic. No camera has beaten it yet (that I have tried at least)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by dabitch
errr.... that should be astounding, clearly.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by dabitch
@malach: I disagree on that it is bullshit - but I totally agree on the rest of your statement. When choosing devices one usually forgets to place value in previously learned interfaces (or interfaces "closer to the paradigms we've learned in the past"). The "blind test" is to put aside all "brandenhanced" desire and choose the interface that is "best" for you. I didn't say "intuitive interface"... :-)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by morris
@malach: Yes and no... There is the interface, but there is something to be said for the overall feel as well, which is what I think @morris was trying to get at. The grip styles on different cameras vary a bit, which can affect the comfort depending on your hand size. This is one reason I'd never use either the D90 or the 5Dm2 -- they aren't full size camera bodies. With my gorilla hands, I find the grips very uncomfortable unless you add the extra battery(or now WiFi transmitter) grips to these bodies. The 2/3rds frame bodies also do not balance as well as full-sized bodies when using heavy glass.
But you are absolutely right about the interface part. When I got the 1Ds Mark III, it drove me nuts because instinct/kinetic memory knew the Mark II/Mark II (which are near enough the same as to be identical for these purposes) and I kept reaching for buttons that didn't exist. I've grown more accustomed to the Mark III interface now, but in the thick of it, the Mark II/I instinct still bubbles up. That is really my single biggest complaint about the Mark IIIs -- they changed the interface without providing a significant bonus for doing so.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by CAW
Any recommendations on lenses? I've been advised to consider:
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
@jyri: I've got the 85mm f/1.8. Cheap, fast and great for portraits!
10 months, 3 weeks ago by lemonad
I absolutely love my 50mm f/1.4, and my f/1.8 85mm comes a close second, but given that they're primes, you're a little limited for "walking around" type photography, so I'd also recommend something that goes from Wide to Long, for those days you just want to take the body and one lens - my all-purpose lens is the 18-105, which gives me lots of flexibility for most situations.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by malach
Yet another vote for concentrating on glass. You'll be upgrading the back, but the good lenses will follow you for years and years.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by samikki
@jyri: By that list, sounds like you're looking at the Canon lenses. If you mean the Nikon versions, then disregard as I've never shot the Nikkors. The Canon 50 f/1.4 is a very good lens, and heavily used. Even the 50 f/1.8 is good, but for the extra price difference, get the f/1.4. Stay away from the f/1.2 -- it's a niche product lens and actually worse than the f/1.4 for anything other than shooting at f/1.2 for an extremely narrow depth of field.
The 85 f/1.8 is also a well regarded lens. The 85 f/1.2, however, is a blow the doors off stunningly phenomenal lens (and the recent Mark II version is supposedly even better than the original (which I own)). There is a massive price difference between the two, though, not to mention size and weight. The 135 f/2 is also an extremely good lens, and the compression effect you get at 135 is very nice for head shots. But that's mainly what I use my 135 for -- as a prime that distance is awkward for more general use. If I'm doing general mid-range work, I prefer my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.
Between the 17-40 and the 16-35, go with the 16-35 (Mark II version). The 16-35 is a great lens, and having f/2.8 is really noticeable over an f/4 lens. And that extra mm on the wide side may sound like "just 1 mm", but when you get down into that range, it's a huge difference in perspective. I would very strongly recommend testing this lens in a shop with the body you end up choosing before buying it, though. Wide angle lenses are a lot of fun to play with, but are not everyone's cup o' brew...
As @malach says, though, you might want to look into something of an 'all around' lens to start with. I personally use the older 28-70 f/2.8 (the current model is the 24-70 f/2.8), but that is again expensive, large and heavy by most people's standards. I know several people that use the 28-135 IS lens for their general 'walk-about' lens. That's a lot cheaper, smaller, and lighter. But it's also a lot slower, being f/3.5-5.6. So if you plan to do a lot of indoor low-light stuff, it wouldn't be the best choice.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by CAW
Not the 50mm. You will get tired of that one.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by himynameisjonas
Wow, big thanks for the deep dive. I now have to seek out a store that sells the 16-35 MkII version, 24-70 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.2 to get a feel for them.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
btw, @CAW do you have any photos up that were taken with your lenses?
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
@jyri: I am @N03/">cwichura on Flickr, but there isn't all that much there. A lot of what I shoot isn't posted online (no model release for public display, etc). The recent figurine shots are with the Canon 180mm macro lens (and the lighting setup shots for those are with the Canon 14mm). The birds are with the Canon 800mm, the zoo shots mostly with the Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS, though some were with the 70-200. The club photos will primarily be a mix of the 28-70 and the 14mm, but also some with the 70-200.
One thing I will point out on the 85 f/1.2 is that it is a very slow lens to focus. I am talking glacially slow. The new Mark II released last year is faster from what I've read, but still very slow compared to most lenses (and optically, about the same as the Mark I hence why I don't see the need to upgrade mine). I only use my 85 for studio work, where the focusing speed isn't an issue and the very long throw of the focusing ring is actually a blessing for manual focus work. But if you're looking to do fast moving shots of your kid indoors, the focusing speed on the 85 might be an issue.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by CAW
In its own perverse way the fixed 50 mm is a very versatile lens. It's light, small, and lets in a lot of light (talking specifically about the Canon 1.4). The versatility comes from its very neutral focal length – you can't mess with it, so it's always right. Or then you need to step closer or farther away.
I'd argue that the 50 mm is in no way a silly purchase, even though the 24-80L can pretty much cover for it. Anyway, it all depends on your needs: where are you shooting? What/who are you shooting? What's your style, laconic, exaggerating? If you're shooting indoors, wide angle can be good. Then again if you don't like flashes, that extra stop can be very useful. If you want to max the silly, go wide. Etc.
My 2 cents.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by dst
I have some old studio stuff on PhotoSIG as well.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by CAW
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollisulopuisto/tags/5014/
10 months, 3 weeks ago by dst
should have known better than to get into a thread about cameras with geeks
10 months, 3 weeks ago by termie
@termie You really should have :)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by malach
Also, a comment about testing lenses in a (reputable) camera shop: TAKE YOUR OWN MEMORY CARD (better yet, your own camera body -- but you don't have the body yet so this complicates things). While in the shop you will get a feel for the size and weight and focus response times of the lens (and focusing will be affected in part by the camera body, which is why you want to use the body you intend to actually use), you cannot get a real sense for the image quality of the lens by chimping a 2 or 3 inch display on the back of the camera. So you need to bring the photos home with you and really look at them on a proper display. (Or bring your laptop along with you to review them there in the store.)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by CAW
@CAW: That's some really good advice.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by RickMeasham
Why isnt D700 on the table? Is it movie capture you are missing?
10 months, 3 weeks ago by uchman
When choosing lenses, think first what you are shooting. For allaround shooting the 24-105L f4.0 is very good lens. I have been using that lens with my 5DMkII. The quality is exellent even with fullframe. 50mm 1.4 is also worth buying for the really lowlight situations.
The video quality of 5DMKII is superb. 5DMKII captures fullHD-video. The handling is little tricky when shooting video. The body is more designed for stillshooting, but interviews or other similar situations are ok.
There is a new book about photographing with Canon DSLR:s. It might be helpfull when choosing equippement.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by PeterF
on Canon: I've got the f4/24-105L and it's a good lens, albeit bit frustrating on low light. The f1.4/50mm is perfect, pretty much the only lens I use.
5D MkII is a full frame, so go and try out both 50mm & 85mm and see how you like them. In any case one good prime and one general tele is a good starting point. You'll know how they are for you after couple of hundred frames :)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by samin
@termie But you are a geek ;-)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by Itkovian
Here's my personal wishlist of lenses based on all the feedback and advice so far:
wide
all around
portrait
tele
I ended up getting the 5D Mk II back and starting with the 24-70mm f/2.8 glass. I'm anticipating to add more objectives as need arises. It'll be interesting to see if my sentiments change after I start shooting.
Thanks to everyone on this thread so far -- I owe you guys some decent photos :D
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
@jyri Just to remind everyone that a lens does not make any amazing portraits... it is the photographer... :D
10 months, 3 weeks ago by PeterF
For those who are interested in this stuff: I also read a bunch of memory card and reader speed comparisons and opted for the Sandisk Extreme FireWire Reader and SanDisk Extreme IV 16 GB Flash memory card.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
@jyri # 24-70mm f/2.8 is probably an excellent choice. Been lookin to get that myself as a general tele.
But yeah, like said you'll know in a few months what lenses you need. I had the 85mm f1.8 but ended up selling that a year later almost unused :)
10 months, 3 weeks ago by samin
@jyri The 50mm f/1.4 also doubles as a great though somewhat wide portrait lens (I like to get up pretty close). And the 24-70 sounds like a great choice. That should give you about equivalent range to my 17-50 crop which has worked out great for me so far.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by alper
will be interested to hear your opinion of the 24-70, @jyri. I went with the cheaper-alternative Tamron 28-75 (also f/2.8) back in the day http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0000A1G05
10 months, 3 weeks ago by oscar
@oscar yeah, it'll be interesting to compare those two lenses. I can't wait to get my hands on the gear.
10 months, 3 weeks ago by jyri
Hoho. I know the feeling, Im waiting for my D700 right now. oioioi!
10 months, 3 weeks ago by uchman