Urgent advice sought for a new DSLR and lenses

OK folks. Acting on a long suppressed itch, and after having discussed this with my Financial Manager (i.e. my wife, LOL), I think I'll finally end up buying a DSLR, possibly tomorrow. I have been waiting for this moment for more than 3 years and I am very excited.

Firstly, I am not a sports photographer or journalist and I try to take good care of my equipment, so the ruggedness of the camera is not a primary concern of mine. I like to photograph landscapes, architecture, still life, street life, concerts, people, portraits and general snapshots. I am leaning towards the wisdom that it is better to buy a middle-of-the road body and excellent lenses rather than buy a semi-pro body and have no money left to spend on excellent/sharp lenses. I think that I can upgrade the body in a few year’s time, the lenses will hopefully last longer than that. Therefore, a D80 and not a D200. A 400D and not a 30D. But, I am willing to make an exception for the 5D. The problem is, I can’t decide, as usual. I have currently 3 Nikon SLR cameras. So it would be logical to buy a Nikon DSLR, but the quality of lenses is not enough to use them on a DSLR. OTOH, I am also enchanted by certain Canon camera’s and lenses. So this is what I’m looking at right now:

1) Canon 5D / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (3,129 Euro)

2) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (2,383 Euro)

3) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 17-85mm F/4.0-5.6 USM IS / Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L USM (2,390 Euro)

4) Nikon D80 / Nikon AF-S 12-24mm F/4.0 G DX IF ED / Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 G DX VR IF ED (2,827 Euro)

5) Nikon D80 / Tokina 12-24mm F/4.0 AT-X / Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 G DX VR IF ED (2,113 Euro)

So please give me your thoughts about this. Are these combinations sensible choices? Would you match and mix lenses in any other ways? Anything you might say, really . Thanks a lot.

Regards,

Cem

(edited due to a typo)

Cem Usakligil said:

OK folks. Acting on long suppressed itch, and after having discussed this with my Financial Manager (i.e. my wife, LOL), I think I'll finally end up buying a DSLR, possibly tomorrow. I have been waiting for this moment for more than 3 years and I am very excited.

Firstly, I am not a sports photographer or journalist ............. I like to photograph landscapes, architecture, still life, street life, concerts, people, portraits and general snapshots. I am leaning towards the wisdom that it is better to buy a middle-of-the road body and excellent lenses

1) Canon 5D / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (3,129 Euro)

2) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (2,383 Euro)

3) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 17-85mm F/4.0-5.6 USM IS / Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L USM (2,390 Euro)

4) Nikon D80 / Nikon AF-S 12-24mm F/4.0 G DX IF ED / Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 G DX VR IF ED (2,827 Euro)

5) Nikon D80 / Tokina 12-24mm F/4.0 AT-X / Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 G DX VR IF ED (2,113 Euro)

So please give me your thoughts about this. Are these combinations sensible choices? Would you match and mix lenses in any other ways? Anything you might say, really . Thanks a lot.

Regards,

Cem

Click to expand...

Hi Cem,

The two best cameras are the 5D and XTi.

I'd go for either with the 24-105 IS and if possible the 70-200 2.8L.

right now, just get one lens, the 24-105. Dont worry about the extra need for wide angle.

The Sigma ultra WA zoom is great and Nicolas Claris uses it for important shots. But get it later. For Landscape, you can stitch any way.

That one lens is sharp and easy to use. I have it with a 5D and it is great.

Color is wonderful, all in all a great choice.

The XTi is the bargain of the centrury, so far.

Save money and then get the 70-200 IS down the road.

The 24-105 could keep you busy for the next 3 years, but you'll get a 50mm 1.8, a superb lens for low light.

You're done!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

...
I'd go for either with the 24-105 IS and if possible the 70-200 2.8L.
...
Save money and then get the 70-200 IS down the road.
...
The 24-105 could keep you busy for the next 3 years, but you'll get a 50mm 1.8, a superb lens for low light.

Click to expand...

Hi Asher,

Thanks a lot for your quick reply. I need some clarification please.
1) Do you mean both the 24-105 and 70-200? Or 70-200 combined with a wider zoom lense such as 17-85?
2) 70-200IS, is that the new F4.0 L USM IS lens?
3) Again, should I get both the 24-105 and 50mm?

BTW, How sharp is the 24-105? Is it really as good as they say it is?

Thanks again.

Cem

Cem Usakligil said:

Hi Asher,

Thanks a lot for your quick reply. I need some clarification please.
1) Do you mean both the 24-105 and 70-200? Or 70-200 combined with a wider zoom lense such as 17-85?
2) 70-200IS, is that the new F4.0 L USM IS lens?
3) Again, should I get both the 24-105 and 50mm?

BTW, How sharp is the 24-105? Is it really as good as they say it is?

Thanks again.

Cem

Click to expand...

1. Buy just the 24-105 it is harp and works very well.

2. I was thinking of the 70-200 2.8 IS if possible since the extra light is helpful however, I have the 70-200 f4.0, notIS and it is one of the best lenses made, easily as sharp and the 70-200 2.8!

Also it fits in my pocket. (I have baggy pants for photography!)

So you might just go with the non-IS f 4.0 lens. It is perfect even with no IS. I cannot find a difference in most situations. Especially if you use flash.

3. Getting more than one lens right now is for use not necessary. 95% of anything you state want to do is easily covered with the 24-105mm IS.

Any other lens is extra.

The 50 1.8 is so cheap, that it is a present to yourself to cover low light avaialble light pictures.

It is perfect for landscape, group pictures, just step back to frame.

This one lens, BTW would make you so happy with either the 5D ot the XTi.

In fact, if you can get the 5D and the 50 1.8 you'd be even better.

Go to the store try these two lenses only on the 5D and the XTi.

You'll be in budget.

Then in 3 months, get your next lenses based on wh
at you then need, based on what you couldn't achieve.

If you had either a 5D or XTi with either and or the 24-105 and the 50 1.8 as choices, you will never regret it as each is a first class route.

Don't get anything else! That you might regret.

Asher

Great advice Asher, I hear you loud and clear .

So what you're saying is the following combinations are the ones to consider as a start:

1) 5D + EF 24-105 F/4 L USM IS + EF 50 F/1.8 (3,218 Euro) + optional EF 70-200 F/4 L USM (629 Euro ==> total 3,847 Euro)
2) XTi + EF 24-105 F/4 L USM IS + EF 50 F/1.8 (1,783 Euro) + optional EF 70-200 F/4 L USM (629 Euro ==> total 2,419 Euro)

What about the wide end on the XTi? With the 24-105, I'll have a minimum of 38.4 mm effectively. Shouldn't I then consider the EF 17-40 F/4 L USM for instance? (689 Euro)

Cheers,

Cem

If you are considering the 5D you should also consider the Nikon D200 (cheaper than the 5D). I shot the 5D (love that camera - FF rocks) with 100-400mm, and 24-70mm lens. I get sharp images with these lens and expect that the 24-105 lens to do the same.

Again take a serious look at the D200 options.

Richard

Richard,

Thanks for your reply. I did not consider D200 simply because it adds little value compared to the D80 for my personal usage scenarios. Yes, it is more rugged, has separate buttons for WB, ISO, the sensor uses 4 channels to make it 5fps, etc. But a D80 fits my bill perfectly while being 600 Euro cheaper, with which I can buy better lenses or some extra SD cards .

The difference between the XTi and 5D is obviously something else, especially considering the FF.

Regards,

Cem

Hi Cem
For a wide on Canon body, have a look on the Sigma 12-24, mine is much much sharper than the Canon 17-40 (that I've sold). On FF it is a pure bonheur.
But try it before you buy, I've heard there are dogs (Sigma quality controls wouldn't be as good as Canon's…)
Best of luck! life seen at 12 mm is another world!

If you're going the canon route, then I think the first lens to get is the 24-70L. I was lucky, bought it from someone here, he keeps trying to get it back. Its on my 20d nearly all the time. The 70-200 f4L, is easy to carry, compared to the 2.8f versions - (and cheaper too) and if the light is OK, it is just as sharp. A couple of Kenko convertors 1.4 & 2 x can get you more reach on the 24-70, and easy to carry. I can't help much with wide angle, I hardly use the 17-40. I think, knowing what I know now, I'd get the 5d and 24-70, the Kenko convertors some spare batteries and a couple of 2 or 4 gB cards. Oh, pscs2, epson r1800, qimage, gallons of ink, etc. the camera starts looking cheap....

Best wishes,

Ray

Cem Usakligil said:

OK folks. Acting on a long suppressed itch, and after having discussed this with my Financial Manager (i.e. my wife, LOL), I think I'll finally end up buying a DSLR, possibly tomorrow. I have been waiting for this moment for more than 3 years and I am very excited.

2) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (2,383 Euro)

Regards,

Cem

(edited due to a typo)

Click to expand...

Personally, given your desires, I'd pick #2.

Then the first upgrade would be a 70-200 lens. Pick your flavor (2.8 vs 4 & IS vs. Non-IS). (price varies heavily between all the options).

At some point (1 year, 2 years, more?) upgrade the body to a Full Frame. No rush. Save yourself a little money in the short term. And during that time, you also have 8mm more on the wide end with this method for landscape. The XTi really is incredible value for money.

It's personal, but the biggest turn-off I have to Nikon is the lack of FF in the digital world. That stated, the majority of my photo-amateur friends all use Nikon.

I was sorry I bought the 10D/20D

Asher is right on. I bought the 10D and then three weeks later my camera store (local) had the 20D in stock. They traded it for me with no additional costs to keep my business. I was never thrilled with my 20D - coming from film, the images just weren't the quality I was used to. Maybe part of it was my lack of skill with the DSLR technology.

I gave it over a year and actually had very little enthusiasm for going to shoot. I prefered my G2 to the DSLR for crispness. Then my husband decided he should upgrade to the 24-70L 2.8, As soo n as I borrowed it - what a difference!!! When I bought that, I ended up upgrading to the 5D. The look to my work is so much better that the work I am doing and my passion has returned. I love the 5D and the 24-70 2.8 L, I also bought the Sigma 12-24 and find that to be a terrific addition to my kit. Next up in the lens Department are the 100 2.8 Macro and the 70-200 L IS. 2.8. THe only thing I know for certain, this is one expensive hobby so I am currently starting a business!

Back in the old days, when lens and recording material were exchangeable, and one may have done a lot in post-processing [chemistry] I'd easily subscribed to the view about bodies not being important. That has changed radically with digital.

The change started in the early to mid-80s when ever more and ever better little helpers were added to bodies. At the same time lens quality reached an unforeseen height across the board, i.e. zoom lenses finally became usable even by HiQ-types. Today third-party manufacturers are not always [much] cheaper than OEMs, just compare the proces for Sigma Fisheyes with the Nikon 10.5 mm FE. We also know that many original lenses are actually made by the same third-party companies.

Canon and Nikon offer largely comparable systems - lenses, accessories, quality are on par. Only if you have a very specific need will you have to look who's meeting it and who not (say, you need a 1200 mm mirror lens*).

As far as the body goes I can only tell you to go out to your local dealer, and try to get yourself at least a Canon body lend over the week-end. You have to know the camera is not a hindrance but falls naturally into your habits. Since you already own Nikon gear - BTW, what camera? - you may actually be well-versed in using Nikon. Personally I never found Canon's design choices [for beauty and usability] tempting. When I decided to go with Minolta in 1986 the alternative was a Canon T90. When I later went from Minolta to Nikon, the EOS-1 was on the table, too. But that's really personal taste.

Regardless of what brand your camera will be, you should have a look into Sigma lenses, the 15-30 mm for instance is quite a lens. If you decide on Nikon, you may rethink the choice of lenses if budget permits:

- although much good has been written about the 18-200 I am not too keen on these wide-ranging zooms
- Nikon's 70-200 mm VR is a brilliant lens in every respect, surely better than the 18-200 mm
- Sigma and Nikon both offer some very good and interesting wide-angle zooms; I already mentioned the 15-30 mm Sigma.
- I always recommend to get a 50 mm prime with 1.8 or 1.4 max opening (depending on budget again)
- consider a dedicated makro lens, Nikon's 105 mm is very good and now comes with VR. Sigma has a very interesting 180 mm in their portfolio [Edit: I deleted a misinformation about the 200 mm Micro lens from Nikon.].

My current set-up:

Nikon 10.5 mm Fisheye
Sigma 15-30 mm
Nikon 2.8/28 mm
Nikon 1.8/50 mm
Nikon 105 mm Makro
Nikon 70-200 mm VR
Lensbaby 2.0

While the 28, 50 and 105 are remnants of pre-digital I still use them regularly.





*I made this up, no idea if Canon, Nikon or any third-party offers such a thing.

Kathy Rappa said:

Asher is right on. I bought the 10D and then three weeks later my camera store (local) had the 20D in stock. They traded it for me with no additional costs to keep my business. I was never thrilled with my 20D - coming from film, the images just weren't the quality I was used to. Maybe part of it was my lack of skill with the DSLR technology.

I gave it over a year and actually had very little enthusiasm for going to shoot. I prefered my G2 to the DSLR for crispness. Then my husband decided he should upgrade to the 24-70L 2.8, As soo n as I borrowed it - what a difference!!! When I bought that, I ended up upgrading to the 5D. The look to my work is so much better that the work I am doing and my passion has returned. I love the 5D and the 24-70 2.8 L, I also bought the Sigma 12-24 and find that to be a terrific addition to my kit. Next up in the lens Department are the 100 2.8 Macro and the 70-200 L IS. 2.8. THe only thing I know for certain, this is one expensive hobby so I am currently starting a business!

Click to expand...

I, too, own a 5D, a Sigma 12-24, and the Canon 24-70. Also a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.8. Love them all. Recently I purchased the Canon 135mm.

Oh my god what a lovely lens! It has a very special quality to it, like butter. Not to disrupt your lens plans, but you may want to check it out.

Just bought a camera

Hi everybody,

Thanks to all the good advice I've been given by you, I ended up buying the following gear:

- Canon 400D (I've decided that I'd rather wait for a year or two for an upgrade to the 5D)
- EF 24-105 F/4 L IS USM. I've looked at the 24-70 F/2.8 very closely, but it felt very heavy on the camera body. I then decided to listen to Asher (after tossing a coin or two) and go for the other lens which was more balanced with a bit longer reach.
- EF 50 F/1.8
- Assorted UV filters and a circular polariser for the 24-105mm.

You can see that I've been a good boy and have listened to particularly what Asher has said (LOL). Nevertheless, I am very happy with the gear, it feels just right.

This morning I went out in the garden and photographed the first thing that I came accross; ie my cat Jinx: enjoy!

Thanks again,

Cem

Cem, I think you will really enjoy the 24-105 F4. It is a sharp lens and the color is very good. I own the Canon 28-70 F2.8 that was replaced by the current 24-70 F2.8 and I never use it. As you said the 24-105 is lighter, has IS, and also has longer reach. I think I have used the 28-70 about 4 times total in the last 4 years. Adorable, cute cat.

Bev

Cem,

You listened to me on the camera, the two lenses but is that a Cat?@@#@#

It is BTW a bsutiful pictures and shows you made a great choice. There is nothing that this camera and lens combination can 't do that you want. further, if you stitch, you can have images that will challenge a large format print in almost all respects.

Congratulations!

So now Mary, you and Leonardo are set up!

We're doing well!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

...but is that a Cat?@@#@#

Click to expand...

Well, she thinks that she is the ruler of the house and everything, but yes, in principle she is a cat (LOL).
Thanks again Asher for the advice, I am a very happy puppy indeed.

Cem

Kathy Rappa said:

I gave it over a year and actually had very little enthusiasm for going to shoot. I prefered my G2 to the DSLR for crispness. Then my husband decided he should upgrade to the 24-70L 2.8, As soo n as I borrowed it - what a difference!!!

Click to expand...

What lens(es) were you using before that?

I don't know much about Canon, being a Nikon and Pentax shooter so I can't give an unbiased opinion except to say that you should spend as little on the body as possible and put your money into lenses. The body will probably be replaced in a few years but the lenses will last forever.