PDA

View Full Version : Lens choices for Canon EOS 30D



RichNY
09-03-2006, 09:25 AM
After having done all my research for Nikon lenses, I'm starting over with Canon- what a pain! Please offer comments/suggestions on the lenses I've picked or others if they are better choices.

Ultra Wide
-Tokina 12-24 f/4 $499
-Canon EF 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 $690
-Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $499 (concerned about vignetting)

Normal
- Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM $1149
- Tamron SP AF XR 28-75mm f/2.8 $449
- Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG $429 (added as choice per Coldrain)

Telephoto
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM $1699
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM $1139
- Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM $1075
- Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM $ 585

- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM $ 559 (added as choice per Coldrain)

coldrain
09-03-2006, 09:36 AM
With the Canon 10-22 USM (nice lens) you have to factor in the purchase of its hood that is not standard. It will add a bit to the price.

The Tokina is of course also a nice lens.

The"standard" lenses you list both are good of course. The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG has its fans too. And then there is the very affordable yet surprisingly well performing (for the price) Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II.

The longer end...
Of course the 70-200 lenses are good lenses. But as you probably know, the f2.8 lenses are heavy. So it does depend on what your purpose is. I personally do not want a 70-200 f2.8 because of its weight, I would not want to lug that around all day.

There is one lens that misses there though. The Canon EF 70-300 IS USM is a very good lens. I would prefer it over the 70-200 f4 L IS USM and also my 70-200 f4 L. Why? Because it is lighter. It is black. It has 100mm more reach. At the long end it is only one f-stop less, but has IS to more than make up for that in most situations. And it performs AMAZINGLY well, totally different from any other 70/75-300 lenses in the market.

It is so sharp it rivals the 300mm F4 L IS for instance... and that is very surprising, and its price is very nice.

So.. depending on what you want to use the tele for... I'd seriously consider the 70-300 IS.

timmciglobal
09-03-2006, 03:51 PM
If I was going for 30D I'd buy

30D, 17-55 IS EF-S, 10-22 EF-S and depending on if I was going low light or not 70-200 F2.8 L Is or 70-300 IS.

Thw 17-55 is a nice companion to the 30D. If price is no object.

Tim

Rex914
09-03-2006, 04:14 PM
If I were buying today, I would also get the 30D, 17-55 IS and a 70-200 of some sort. The 17-55 is pricey and requires you to fork over $50 more for the hood, but it's very versatile, giving you both f/2.8 when you need it and IS when you need to handhold in low light (at smaller apertures). Its price is slowly coming down, and you can now find it for $1049 at a few places like Buydig.com and for $1099 at B&H (psaug).

It really depends on whether you'll find yourself in low light a lot or not. If you see yourself in that situation, or if you love that shallow DOF that comes with faster lenses, then the f/2.8 zooms are the way to go. If you don't, buy the third party lenses along with the 70-300 IS. They'll serve you well for a lot less, and if you still need the low light performance from time to time, you can buy a fast but lightweight prime to supplement your collection.

Just make sure that what you're buying is what you want and that you don't bump into surprises. The 70-200/2.8 and its IS counterpart are quite heavy for the uninitiated, so make sure you've tried that combination out in the store before committing. ;)

Esoterra
09-03-2006, 06:07 PM
If I were in your shoes:

30D
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
Tokina 12-24 f/4

If you want, save up for a 5D and use the 30D as a backup

CptOfGondor
09-03-2006, 11:19 PM
If I were in your shoes:

30D
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
Tokina 12-24 f/4

If you want, save up for a 5D and use the 30D as a backup

*looks at my empty wallet..LoL

Yea I agree with the lens picks although you could save waht? like $500 on the 70-200mm f2.8L w/o the IS. Like f2.8 is pretty fast already. You can use the $500 for a nice bag, maybe a Speedlight if you into that, tripod, some filters to protect your nice lenses etc.

Esoterra
09-04-2006, 05:14 PM
True true words you speak! Money is the problem...where is it when you need your new camera gear? Say, why not just get a new credit card and charge a 5D, Tokina 12-24, Canon 24-70, and Canon 70-200 IS to it... your closing in on what... say $8,000 USD or there abouts... then go downtown where ever you live, and take pictures of people and charge them 5$ per picture....you should have your credit card payed off in....no time! :D

ReF
09-04-2006, 06:42 PM
After having done all my research for Nikon lenses, I'm starting over with Canon- what a pain! Please offer comments/suggestions on the lenses I've picked or others if they are better choices.

Ultra Wide
-Tokina 12-24 f/4 $499
-Canon EF 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 $690
-Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $499 (concerned about vignetting)

Normal
- Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM $1149
- Tamron SP AF XR 28-75mm f/2.8 $449
- Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG $429 (added as choice per Coldrain)

Telephoto
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM $1699
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM $1139
- Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM $1075
- Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM $ 585

- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM $ 559 (added as choice per Coldrain)


if starting over today i'd get:

17-55 IS
70-200 f2.8
10-22

of course this is assuming you'll be sticking with the 1.6x crop since 2 of the three lenses listed above are EF-S. personally, full frame is a likely upgrade path for me so i'll just stick to the stuff in my sig for now ;) . if you've got the coin, i'd suggest the IS version of the 70-200. and this is just me, but i can't imagine the 70-200 without a 1.4x TC. good luck in your decision

RichNY
09-04-2006, 06:50 PM
I'm under no budget constaints but see no reason to 'waste' money were its not needed. For example, at my beginning level a 5D would be way overkill (except I'd love the wide angle of FF). I'd much rather purchase but capable camera now and then replace it with the latest technology available when I'm at a point to put it to good use.

I'm willing to invest in glass now because I'll be keeping that long term, although I'm not thrilled with purchasing expensive lenses that won't work if the universe goes full frame- but I'm sure they will have some salvage value :)

I know lenses are a compromise- you can't have low cost, great quality, and great flexibility. But what is driving me nuts is that even removing budget as a constraint I don't like the way the focal lengths for quality lenses.

For example, the 24-70 2.8L lens will give me great photos but it has range of focal lengths as a walk around lens on a 1.6 camera. The 17-55 works better on the wide end but doesn't offer much range. And even if I went with that it leaves the 55-70 range without coverage- or 55-100 range if I went with a 100-400 instead of the 70-200.

Image quality and shutter lag aside, there is something to be said for those 12x digicams.

- A very confused and frustrated guy in NY

ReF
09-04-2006, 07:02 PM
i don't miss the 50-70mm gap at all (i think others will tell you the same) - the problem is having to switch lenses to access the focal lengths.

the 100-400 IS and 70-200 f2.8 IS + TC are very different lenses. the decision to go with one over the other is pretty drastic IMO.

Rex914
09-04-2006, 08:03 PM
For example, the 24-70 2.8L lens will give me great photos but it has range of focal lengths as a walk around lens on a 1.6 camera. The 17-55 works better on the wide end but doesn't offer much range. And even if I went with that it leaves the 55-70 range without coverage- or 55-100 range if I went with a 100-400 instead of the 70-200.
With your current camera, what ranges do you use most, and most relevantly, do you use that 55-70 range? If you don't, this won't be much of an issue since you don't use it to begin with. ;)

To take myself as an example, I currently find myself using just 2 parts of my current camera's range. I either use it at the widest setting for general usage (and wish that it went wider than 38mm) or I use it at the full telephoto end at 76mm for my food photography. Based on these two parameters, I know that I won't miss the 55-70 gap because I don't use it on my current camera, hence the 17-55 + 70-200 combination which I would get is apt for me.

RichNY
09-04-2006, 08:54 PM
With your current camera, what ranges do you use most, and most relevantly, do you use that 55-70 range? If you don't, this won't be much of an issue since you don't use it to begin with. ;)

To take myself as an example, I currently find myself using just 2 parts of my current camera's range. I either use it at the widest setting for general usage (and wish that it went wider than 38mm) or I use it at the full telephoto end at 76mm for my food photography. Based on these two parameters, I know that I won't miss the 55-70 gap because I don't use it on my current camera, hence the 17-55 + 70-200 combination which I would get is apt for me.

I just reviewed the 300+ pictures I took with a Sony H2 in Tahiti/Bora Bora earlier this month. Lots of really wide shots, lots 24-55 shots, lots of 70-80 shots, lots of 200-400 shots. Only a dozen in the 55-70 range. I think you are right apout the 55-70 gap not being that significant.

What's the Canon part number for a 10-80 f/2.8L IS USM? That should take care of most of my needs ;)

DonSchap
09-04-2006, 09:15 PM
does not make any zoom shooting f/2.8 10-80mm

The closest lens is the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (No IS, sorry)
14965

You would couple that with a second piece of glass, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (Again, no IS)
14966

and finally topping the whole enchilada with the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.
14967

That covers the range with f/2.8L quality glass. Total price of this collection... $1,400 + $1,150 + $1,700 = $4,250... yeah, baby!

You also may want to look at the "sleeper" Tokina AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 SD AT-X 840AF II ($489.95) (2.16 lbs). While not as bright as the Canon EF 70-200m f/2.8L IS USM, chances are that you would be using this lens outdoors.

The several results I have seen posted (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=206338) from this lens easily rivals the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ($1,399.00) (3 lbs), without the expensive IS. I mean... $900 for image shake? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

RichNY
09-05-2006, 12:27 AM
Don- My request for the Canon 10-80 f/2.8 IS was tongue in cheek; I knew no such animal existed.

I was hoping you'd post your suggestions since you have what- the entire lens collection;)

Knowing that I want to go wide (10-12) to at least 200 + 1.4x TC to start, and that I want to buy the fastest and best glass (where a noticeable not measureable quality difference can be seen, and where I'm not looking to spend $1000s to get a barely noticeable difference in quality but I've got no real upper limit for spending where the lens will make a big difference, what are your recommendations?

Also, while I'm not looking for a lens to pump iron with, I am a big enough guy to deal with the weight of heavier lenses if that's what it will take to get better quality photographs.

coldrain
09-05-2006, 01:16 AM
I still think you shoudl seriousy consider the 70-300 IS USM, unless you have a real reason to want an f2.8 aperture for tele. The 70-300 is just that good.

ENTMD
09-05-2006, 10:54 AM
I was in same boat as you - I can really afford what I want and can run equipment through my business for added cost reduction. That said, there is that "buyer's remorse" when you spend $$ on a lens you just don't seem to use. I currently own 17-40L which stays on my camera alot, 70-300mm IS which lives up to all the hype and despite reports to the contrary is a reasonably well built lens. I started with 50 1.4 which I don't use that much but feel is good to have for low light situations and when you want to limit depth of field. The one lens I bought and don't use too much now is the 28-135 IS. I liked it at first due to the fairly good tele range but as it turns out for most of my shots (babies, vacations,recitals, sports) the other lenses seems to be all I need. My real point is - if you can - try not to buy all these lenses at once - you will undoubtedly find out after using you camera for a while where your real needs lie and can buy accordingly. B&H can ship you virtually any lens you like in 48 hours so no need to rush unless there is a pressing engagement your gearing for. - my 2 cents

RichNY
09-05-2006, 11:52 AM
IMy real point is - if you can - try not to buy all these lenses at once - you will undoubtedly find out after using you camera for a while where your real needs lie and can buy accordingly. B&H can ship you virtually any lens you like in 48 hours so no need to rush unless there is a pressing engagement your gearing for. - my 2 cents

LOL- I thought I was going slow. The Macro and 200+ lenses weren't on the list.

My goal is to complete my research and buy the camera/lenses right after photokina (just to make sure nothing is announced so soon that would change my decisions) and to begin photographing by October 1st. I want to take alot of shots with the New York-New England changing of the leaves which starts in another few weeks.

If I bought slower I'm assuming I'd still want the ultra wide and normal range lenses and could hold off on the 70-200/300..... but wouldn't you know that's also when football season starts!

DonSchap
09-05-2006, 09:28 PM
Even if there is something announced at Photokina, there will be a severe lag in the amount of time it will take to actually get to market. Oh, it'll be nice for planning purposes... but as far as being practical and having equipment on the 1st of October... I really don't believe that will be the case. More like March 1st, next year.

As far as recommendations go... if low light is your plan...

The TAmROn SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF) is an excellent choice. Lightweight and practical, when slapped on the front of a EOS 30D, you will have an effective 28-80mm f/2.8 lens. That is an excellent walk-around focal length. The cost, roughly $449, is pretty reasonable too, for such low light capability.

Another choice might be the well-established TAmROn SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) lens. Once again, when placed on the front of an EOS 30D, the effective focal length is 45-120mm. This lens offers some limited telephoto and also the excellent low light capability (f/2.8) you seek across the focal length.

I agree that Photokina may open the door on the new TAmROn SP AF70-210mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). This could finally be the magic-bullet to unseat the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens from "top dog". It could be remarkably affordable, but that remains to be seen.

This would be a clean sweep of the lenses for the range prescribed, but for the 10-24mm range... the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 remains, in the opinion of many, to be the affordable lens of choice for UWA. The third party lenses would definitely be a lot cheaper and deliver rather excellent response.

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ($500) + TAmROn 17-50mm f/2.8 ($450) + TAmROn 28-75 f/2.8 ($390) + TAmROn 70-210mm f/2.8 (~$850mm) = $2190 for 4 lenses

(Of course, if you couldn't wait for the "new" TAmROn release and were sure you be using the longer range outdoors... I know I mentioned the Tokina 80-400mm for around $500. It would be an excellent alternative until the new f/2.8 TAmROn showed up, making the cost even lower... for the time being, to $1,840! What a killer bag of glass that would be... 12-400mm! (or effectively 19-640mm)) ;)

That seems a whole lot cheaper than the Canon solution of

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ($675) + Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1,150) + Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (no-IS)($1,140) = $2965 for 3 lenses

RichNY
09-05-2006, 09:47 PM
Don, I'm thinking that I'll still purchase the 30D but I'm hoping that if a 40D is announced it will come in at the 30D price and the 30D will drop to the 20D price. Wishful thinking perhaps but it's only two weeks away and I've got other things to work on rather than shooting in the interim.

Your recommendations really took me by surprise. I thought one of the big selling points of the Canon line v. Nikon were supposed to be their L lenses. Since budget wasn't a concern I am just perplexed why your suggestion is for all 3rd party lenses. (I'm going to have to do a bit of reading of them to learn why)

You've definately got the entire focal range covered with this approach but I'm now at 4 lenses instead of 3- a step backwards in convenience.

I'll be researching these lens suggestions if anyone needs me ;)

Rex914
09-05-2006, 09:57 PM
Don, I'm thinking that I'll still purchase the 30D but I'm hoping that if a 40D is announced it will come in at the 30D price and the 30D will drop to the 20D price. Wishful thinking perhaps but it's only two weeks away and I've got other things to work on rather than shooting in the interim.

Your recommendations really took me by surprise. I thought one of the big selling points of the Canon line v. Nikon were supposed to be their L lenses. Since budget wasn't a concern I am just perplexed why your suggestion is for all 3rd party lenses. (I'm going to have to do a bit of reading of them to learn why)

You've definately got the entire focal range covered with this approach but I'm now at 4 lenses instead of 3- a step backwards in convenience.

I'll be researching these lens suggestions if anyone needs me ;)
I can't speak entirely for Don, but a lot of people here, including Don, favor third party lenses for their incredible value for the money. L lenses are better in nearly all cases, but they can cost up to 3 times the amount of the equivalent third party lens. For those of us with smaller budgets, we opt for the third party lenses because they deliver 90% of the L lense's quality for a fraction of the cost. So why do we still go for L lenses?

Generally, L lenses have superior focusing ability and far superior build quality. Most of the time, they also have great contrast, bokeh, color and that indescribable "pop" that many of us come to admire. That's where L lenses pull ahead of third party lenses, but the cost difference is significant. If you need that last 10% (a lot of people still do!), L lenses are the way to go, otherwise third party lenses will do the trick.

DonSchap
09-05-2006, 10:14 PM
I have found in my personal experience that glass overlap is a good thing.

For most indoor shooting, the 17-50mm seems to be quite adequate.

For most outdoor shooting, the 28-75mm seems to get it done quite nicely. Then, if needed, I slap on the 70-200mm to reach out and snag the distant stuff.

But, I do have the 200-500mm, in the bag... just in case the 70-200mm can't pull it off. 500mm on a 20D is really some kind of reach. That's effectively 800mm. Serious, serious reach. The TAmROn, as it usually the case with their lens line, is quite lightweight and a joy to tote, if needed.

Once again... I am weight-conscious, due to a back injury that I suffered several years ago. TAmROn really nails it when it comes to being lightweight. If I have a hand truck available, then I will consider Canon lenses. But, as long as I am backpacking my rig, here, there... everywhere... I figure lose that metal lens casing. Toting that Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is no joy, believe you me. It's a 53-ouncer. I will be more than happy to replace it with the new TAmROn 70-210mm f/2.8 and lose half that weight.

Let do the weights... just for fun.

Tokina 12-24 (24 oz)
Tamron 17-50 (15.2 oz)
Tamron 28-75 (18 oz)
Tamron 70-210 (~25 oz)
or
Tokina 80-400 (35 oz)

Third party total = 82.2 oz or 92.2 oz (4 lenses)

Canon EF-S 10-22 (13.6oz)
Canon 24-70L (34 oz)
Canon 70-200L (46 oz)

Canon total = 93.6 oz (3 lenses)

Close, if you go with the 80-400mm lens... otherwise... 11.4 oz (1/2+lb) difference. You have a whole other zoom in your pack and it still weighs less. Maybe it's just me, but that means something.... less to carry.

With the 28-75 being an optional piece, thrown in just to close the gap... you could more than likely do without it... meaning you are going down to three lenses and losing an additional 18 oz., bringing your glass weight total to...

64.2 oz or 74.2 oz.

It may all look like numbers, but when you have to carry this stuff... it suddenly becomes much more. Uggh! :p

forno
09-05-2006, 10:27 PM
just do what Don does, buy them all:p

RichNY
09-05-2006, 10:28 PM
Perhaps its because I'm a few years younger than you and am not suffering from a back injury, an 11.4 oz. doesn't seem like that big a difference to me. I'll also be carrying a carbon fiber Gitzo 1325 so that will be a little lighter than an aluminum tripod. In all honesty, I'd be better off losing the weight off my waist and ass rather than my backpack :)

In your opinion am I giving up any visable image quality when going with these lenses? Am I giving up much in the way of build quality?

Don't get me wrong I'm all in favor of lighter lenses, and saving money but from everything I've been reading lenses such as the Canon 70-200 IS are being touted as the greatest lenses since sliced bread. Is these comments accurate?

RichNY
09-05-2006, 10:30 PM
just do what Don does, buy them all:p
Not a bad idea but then I'd be suffering from a back problem also!

Don- Did you ever add up all the weight of your photo gear?

forno
09-05-2006, 10:41 PM
Don- Did you ever add up all the weight of your photo gear?

LMAO, that would be like comparing notes with Noah:D

DonSchap
09-05-2006, 10:45 PM
I don't drag all of this gear to shoots. I tend to pick and choose my gear... as a painter selects his brushes. Each tool offers its own benefit to the production of the canvas. I kind of wish I could tote a monitor and a printer along... just to have a better look at what was shot... right on the site. Ticks me off when I get back and find the focus was a little off, because the camera's "intelligent focus" selected something a little different than what I wanted. (I know we all go through this, but it doesn't make it any more fun. :( )

I routinely swap my EOS-3 and the EOS 20D in and out of the LowePro backpack containing the glass and flash units. Please remember that Di II or EF-S lenses do not work with 35mm or full sensor digitals properly or at all, so that limits what lenses go along for the ride when shooting film. I have to toss the 18-200mm, 17-50mm and the 11-18mm UWA. Only the TAmROn 28-75mm, TAmROn 28-105mm, Canon 70-200mm and TAmROn 200-500mm remain.

I had several Minolta 35mm film cameras (still do) before I branched into Canon. The recent purchase of the SONY A100 body was to make use of all the wonderful old glass I had on hand and still get some digital images through it. I usually shoot the Canon... but it is rather nice to have a decent 10MP backup to it, to be sure.

The Canon Powershot S3 IS simply does not cut it when it comes to fast-moving or low light focusing. Yet, it is lightweight and an easy tote, when you are in a hurry. It's more convenience than choice.

Unlike many other photographers, I find lightweight tripods rather dangerous for my equipment. I like the tripod to weigh at least as much as the rig I assemble atop it. In that way, it is NOT top-heavy and is less likely to fall if "accidently" bumped. I suffered just that kind of problem about a decade ago, when a relative hit the tripod and sent it crashing to the floor. The external flash was destroyed. "Never again!" I thought... and although I double the weight of the rig... it is stable as heck. I wound up using a Manfrotto 3021N and have been very happy with it.

RichNY
09-05-2006, 11:36 PM
Unlike many other photographers, I find lightweight tripods rather dangerous for my equipment. I like the tripod to weigh at least as much as the rig I assemble atop it. In that way, it is NOT top-heavy and is less likely to fall if "accidently" bumped. I suffered just that kind of problem about a decade ago, when a relative hit the tripod and sent it crashing to the floor. The
external flash was destroyed. "Never again!" I thought... and although I double the weight of the rig... it is stable as heck. I wound up using a Manfrotto 3021N and have been very happy with it.

I agree. That's why I went with the Gitzo 1325 & 1321 leveling base v. the 3021N. The 3021 has a center column where the 1325 doesn't. This causes a loss of stability and is akin to mounting a monopod on the tripod.

The 3021 also only has a height of 53.2" with the column down, weighs 3lbs, and supports a max load of 13.3 lbs.

The Gitzo 1325 has a max height of 58.3" and a minimum height of 4.3" It weighs in at 4.5lb but can support 26.5lb. While it might be a while before I get a really giant lens, I'm planning on shooting on windy days and the stability will come in handy.

What ballhead are you using? I am debating between the Markin 20 and the Really Right Stuff BH-55. Whichever I choose I'm still going to be using the RRS L plate on the camera, and one of their quick mount plates for the 70-200/300.

I've got to admit that I almost sh@t when I came to the realization that a really good tripod setup costs as much as a D70-D80! I'm glad that this is something I'll only have to buy once in a lifetime.

Vich
09-06-2006, 12:14 AM
Well; if you like wide and have lots of $$, I would honestly go for the 5D. It has reports of NOTICABLY better IQ, and particularly high-ISO performance.

Then, get the 16-35 (same range as 10-20 for the 1.6x cameras - FF 16mm = 10mm x 1.6), the new 50mm f1.2 (promises to be = 35mm f1.4 quality, which is tops), 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8 IS. That should get you going with a nice weighty backpack.

Some have opted for the 24-105 f4.0L IS (that I have), but I think the 24-70 f2.8 will turn in better results. Either would be fine. I don't like the 24-105 bokeh at some focus distances (ugly bright bubbles), but it's sharp as can be, fast, very quiet, light, smallish, excellent buiild quality (same as 24-70), effective IS, and the bokeh is only a problem on about 1 of 200 shots.

IS is not an over-touted advantage. It's real. Too bad there's not a nice mid-range f2.8 zoom with IS for FF shooters to match the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Since getting the 35L, I've truely enjoyed shooting with a short-standard prime. The added IQ and positively amazing bokeh is always a pleasure to see.

I've not shot FF so I can't really say that 200mm will suffice, so maybe the 70- 300 IS would be a better starter. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is just SUCH a great lens, it's hard to believe the 70-300 IS can match it's IQ. There's a reason for the term "L-fever".

I haven't added that all up, but it sounds like about $9K, but will have a resale of about $7.5K in a year, and most of that loss will be the 5D. Still yet, if you've got the $$, why not get today's technology today. I'm waiting for next year, but still firmly believe the 5D is the camera to get.

Maybe ... take a CF card to a photo shop and shoot some 5D and 30D using the same glass. A good shop may let you take it outside for a few minutes.

RichNY
09-06-2006, 12:52 AM
Well; if you like wide and have lots of $$, I would honestly go for the 5D. It has reports of NOTICABLY better IQ, and particularly high-ISO performance.

Then, get the 16-35 (same range as 10-20 for the 1.6x cameras - FF 16mm = 10mm x 1.6), the new 50mm f1.2 (promises to be = 35mm f1.4 quality, which is tops), 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8 IS. That should get you going with a nice weighty backpack.

Some have opted for the 24-105 f4.0L IS (that I have), but I think the 24-70 f2.8 will turn in better results. Either would be fine. I don't like the 24-105 bokeh at some focus distances (ugly bright bubbles), but it's sharp as can be, fast, very quiet, light, smallish, excellent buiild quality (same as 24-70), effective IS, and the bokeh is only a problem on about 1 of 200 shots.

IS is not an over-touted advantage. It's real. Too bad there's not a nice mid-range f2.8 zoom with IS for FF shooters to match the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Since getting the 35L, I've truely enjoyed shooting with a short-standard prime. The added IQ and positively amazing bokeh is always a pleasure to see.

I've not shot FF so I can't really say that 200mm will suffice, so maybe the 70- 300 IS would be a better starter. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is just SUCH a great lens, it's hard to believe the 70-300 IS can match it's IQ. There's a reason for the term "L-fever".

I haven't added that all up, but it sounds like about $9K, but will have a resale of about $7.5K in a year, and most of that loss will be the 5D. Still yet, if you've got the $$, why not get today's technology today. I'm waiting for next year, but still firmly believe the 5D is the camera to get.

Maybe ... take a CF card to a photo shop and shoot some 5D and 30D using the same glass. A good shop may let you take it outside for a few minutes.

I guess its where my personality comes out. I have a real problem bringing myself to invest in items that rapidly depreciate. I bought a 2 year old 740il and a 2 yearl old Dodge Ram 2500 so as not to get killed on the depreciation. But then I thought nothing of dropping some $$$ on a 9bdr house because it was an asset that would appreciate (although the taxes are now a killer)

Honestly I'm just starting out with photography. I want to invest in the two things that will affect my photos the most- my education and lenses. I know that the the more popular lenses will maintain more of their value and that the value of a camera will nosedive. By the time I'm ready to appreciate the added features of the 5D the 6D/7D will be out and I'd rather purchase one of those rather than wasting my money on the 5D depreciation while I'm not taking advantage of it. This was the same reason I backed down from the D200 to the D80.

The other downside to the 5D is the fps. Not that I had intended to shoot lots of sports but I guess I'm going to try my hand at it just to see how I like it. This is just a minor point though- The above is what I based my decision on.

If I turn out to love photography I'll be happy with my lenses, tripod, and lighting. If I come to the realization that I'd be just as happy with a 12x P&S then at least I know that I'll be easily able to sell my quality equipment and I won't take as big a loss on it as if lots of my budget were in the camera.

"The 70-200 f2.8 IS is just SUCH a great lens, it's hard to believe the 70-300 IS can match it's IQ. There's a reason for the term "L-fever".
- I know. That's why I'm surprised so many people recommended solutions which didn't include the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which I understood to be one of Nikon's best lenses.

coldrain
09-06-2006, 01:35 AM
I've not shot FF so I can't really say that 200mm will suffice, so maybe the 70- 300 IS would be a better starter. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is just SUCH a great lens, it's hard to believe the 70-300 IS can match it's IQ. There's a reason for the term "L-fever".

What all constitutes image quality is hard to say. But here are some test results on a 20D and a 5D, just to show how sharp the 70-300 is.
100mm macro + 300mm f4L as references, 70-200 f2.8L + 70-300 IS on different bodies.

Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro on 20D 1.6x crop
Edge sharpness 956/927 LP/IH (open/2 f-stops stopped down)
Center sharpness 1004/1019
Contrast 38 points

Canon EF 300 f4 L on 20D 1.6x crop
Edge sharpness 912/918
Center sharpness 958/978
Contrast 34.5 points

Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS on 20D 1.6x crop
Edge sharpness @70mm 950/958
Center sharpness @70mm 999/1014
Contrast @70mm 38 points

Edge sharpness @135mm 923/967
Center sharpness @135mm 973/1006
Contrast @135mm 36 points

Edge sharpness @ 200mm 873/953
Center sharpness @200mm 951/1010
Contrast @200mm 34.5 points

Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro on 5D FF
Edge sharpness 986/1057
Center sharpness 1368/1382
Contrast 56.5 points

Canon EF 300mm f4 L on 5D FF
Edge sharpness 925/1020
Center sharpness 1275/1351
Contrast 53.3 points

Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM on 5D FF
Edge sharpness @70mm 1047/1037
Center sharpness @70mm 1401/1378
Contrast 56.5 points

Edge sharpness @200mm 1035/1059
Center sharpness @200mm 1365/1384
Contrast 56 points

Edge sharpness @300mm 961/1046
Center sharpness @300mm 1389/1394
Contrast 54 points


I don't know about you Vich, but these figures make me think there is something to it when some 70-300 IS owners say it is an L in disguise. And unless you NEED f2.8 and the weight, I'd certainly put it on my check it out list.

The 70-300 performs just amazingly good, and scored highest of all lenses on the 5D except for the 100mm macro in the tests from ColorFoto. If you do not want to trust just one source:
photozone 70-300 IS test (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm)

The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list.
photozone 70-200 f2.8 L IS test (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm)
Due to that they were testing a seemingly bad sample, also:
photozone 70-200 f2.8 L test (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28/index.htm)

From 70-300 IS:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/mtf.gif

As hinted in the introduction the lens features an UD (ultra-low dispersion) element which is quite unusual for a consumer grade Canon lens. This special kind of glass is usually only used in Canon L (professional grade) lenses.
In the lab the effect of the new design became pretty obvious with surprisingly high resolution figures throughout the range. In fact the data was so impressive that I was already wondering whether I had mixed up the RAW files with a (supposedly) better lens.
From 70-200 f2.8 L:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28/mtf.gif

I guess you can draw your own conclusions.

RichNY
09-06-2006, 01:44 AM
I've got a request. When you post measurements and statistics on the board can you please also include a paragraph explaining how to interpret the information, what it means, and why it is important. I know that a lot of information is beyond what I currently understand and I'm sure I'm not alone with this.

With a little tutorial at the beginning of each of these type of posts you'll raise the knowlege level of quite a few members of the board.

coldrain
09-06-2006, 01:57 AM
Bigger numbers are better. Edge sharpness means sharpness at the borders of the image. Center sharpness means sharpness at the center of the lens.
Contrast is just a score.
Fully open aperture means just that. And 2 fstops stopped down just means that too, not fully open.

I do not know what to explain more, sorry.

The numbers of the lenses show that the 70-300 performs very very good, similar to the 100 macro, similar or better than the 300mm f4L, and similar to the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

That is very very surprising because:
Macro lenses are KNOWN to be very sharp, the 100mm being no exception.
The 300 f4 L is a single focal point lens! Not a zoom! And it is twice the price! And the "consumer" zoom outperforms it.
The 70-200 f2.8 IS USM is known to be a very good zoom lens. To come close as consumer zoom that is 1/4th of the price is amazing. To equal it is more than amazing.

Only downside to this lens is a rotating front element. That becomes a problem when you are someone that likes to use a polarized light filter on a tele lens.