PDA

View Full Version : Base Set of Lenses for Canon DSLR



geogecko
04-07-2009, 01:32 PM
Well, I have been thinking about getting into SLR photography for a long time now, and just have never bit the bullet, so to speak. A few weeks ago, I was asked if I wanted to join the video camera team at church, where we use Canon XL2's to shoot live video for our services. This kind of reawakened my interest in getting a more serious camera, which has prompted this thread.

I have pretty much decided on getting a Canon Rebel T1i, pending some good reviews when it comes out. I was thinking this would be a good entry/mid level start at DSLRs. I was originally looking at both this camera, and the 50D. To me, there really isn't much of a price difference between the two cameras, when you consider the cost of lenses. So, my initial idea, was to go with the T1i, and maybe in a couple years, upgrade to a 60D.

After some initial reading, and looking around, I think I have pretty much decided on getting the 17-55 F2.8 IS as the lens to purchase with the camera (instead of the kit lens). I was able to demo the 18-55 lens that would come on that camera, and it should work for most general type photography, however, I noticed that it cannot really zoom up that much (after looking at my current Canon SD550, it's telephoto range is 108mm--I think, where as the 18-55 telephoto range would be 88mm). So, I started looking at zooming telephoto lenses, and thought that if I am going to spend the money, I might as well do it now, instead of upgrading them later. Since the F2.8 standard zoom lens caught my eye, naturally, the 70-200 F2.8L IS lens caught my eye. A little pricy, but I figure, the upgrades will mainly come to the camera body, with the lenses being able to be used on the old and new cameras.

With that said, does that seem like a good idea? Would there be any other considerations I should take into account? Is there any reason to go with the 70-200 F4L IS instead of the F2.8L version? I originally picked the F2.8 versions, because I thought they would do better in lower light conditions, where I could not use a flash. Also, will I miss anything by not having coverage in the 56-69mm range?

Mainly, my photography will consist of portraits of family members, my kids activities, and possibly vacation pictures. I don't want to have to carry a huge amount of equipment with me for traveling, but for everyday stuff at home, it doesn't really matter.

TheWengler
04-07-2009, 01:45 PM
Just a couple comments...
The 17-55mm f/2.8 won't work on FF cameras, but it's an excellent option if you aren't going that route in the future. The 70-200mm f/4 weighs about half as much as the f/2.8. You shouldn't miss anything in the 55-70mm gap. Consider getting an external flash.

adam75south
04-07-2009, 01:45 PM
it just depends on how much you wanna spend and who you ask.

personally, lately i've been on a prime lens kick. primes are lighter to carry around and they also give you better results. if it weren't for the need for reach and IS, i'd get rid of my 70-200L IS.

btw, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is an awesome lens. it really is great. but man that thing gets heavy fairly quick...so definitely keep that in mind.

Nickcanada
04-07-2009, 01:57 PM
You can make a valid case for any lens. The 70-200 F4 IS is cheaper and lighter and sharper, but it's not F2.8.... so if you need F 2.8 then you get the 70-200mm 2.8.

Tons of people love the 17-55mm 2.8 IS but I thought it was too pricey, but if that's what you need then that's what you need.

My advice, buy "The Moment It Clicks" by Joe McNally. Then spend the rest of your time as a photographer worrying about light instead of lenses. ;)

geogecko
04-07-2009, 02:11 PM
I like the option to being able to go to a FF camera, so what would be my option for a lens that is compatible with both, for 17/18-55?

I will for sure look at getting an external flash, and thanks for the suggestion.

I agree, I think I saw that the 70-200 F2.8 was over 3lbs...kind of makes for a heavy setup to carry around with you. Maybe the F4 would be better, although what worries me is shooting indoors, at events that are dimly lit...I could just be making a big deal out of it, I don't know.

My main goal for now, was just to get the camera body, and a single standard zoom lens to use with it. The telephoto zoom lens will come later.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I did order Digital Photography (boxed set) by Scott Kelby, mainly because of the great reviews on Amazon...we'll see how they are when I get them.

So just to clarify, the 50D is currently still not a FF camera, right? I doubt I'd go above this level of camera anyway, unless I just totally got into it... I assume the 60D will still also be an APS-C size sensor as well, but haven't read that much in the rumors...

laydros
04-07-2009, 02:18 PM
T1i vs. 50D - I find the xxD cameras much more comfortable. I prefer the ergonomics of the 40D over the features of the T1i. If you find the T1i as comfortable or more comfortable than the 40/50D and the reviews are positive, get it. Other than high FPS and ergonomics, there should be no reason to choose a 40/50D over the T1i.

However if you are carrying around a camera all day with a heavy lens and a flash on it, and the Rebel fits in your hands like it does in mine, you will be way better off with less features but better ergonomics.

It is pointed out above, but I will also mention the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8. If you will be carrying it around, and you don't really need telephoto 2.8, get the f/4 instead. The f/4 IS is often said to be the sharpest zoom Canon makes. I recently could have bought a Sigma or Tamron f/2.8, but decided to get something cheap and small for now, and get a 2.8 later. If you can afford to add an 85 and 135 prime to the f/4, you get even better low light ability.

I think it is a good idea to cover your bases (on crop from 18-ish to 200-ish) with good glass, then pick great glass for the range you use the most. I shoot all kinds of stuff, but I most enjoy pictures of people. And for that 40-105-ish is the most useful, so I do miss the 56-69 gap in my lenses. I'm planning to add something like the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 soon as my fast glass, because it covers the range I use the most. I think for the type of pictures you mentioned, you might be better off to get the cheap (but good quality) 18-55IS to cover the very bottom end, then get something like the 24-105 f/4L or the 24-70 f/2.8L to properly cover the range that is going to be used most for vacation, family members, etc. If you expect to be shooting sporting events then it will be worth the money to get one of the 70-200L.

laydros
04-07-2009, 02:27 PM
I like the option to being able to go to a FF camera, so what would be my option for a lens that is compatible with both, for 17/18-55?

I will for sure look at getting an external flash, and thanks for the suggestion.

I agree, I think I saw that the 70-200 F2.8 was over 3lbs...kind of makes for a heavy setup to carry around with you. Maybe the F4 would be better, although what worries me is shooting indoors, at events that are dimly lit...I could just be making a big deal out of it, I don't know.

My main goal for now, was just to get the camera body, and a single standard zoom lens to use with it. The telephoto zoom lens will come later.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I did order Digital Photography (boxed set) by Scott Kelby, mainly because of the great reviews on Amazon...we'll see how they are when I get them.

So just to clarify, the 50D is currently still not a FF camera, right? I doubt I'd go above this level of camera anyway, unless I just totally got into it... I assume the 60D will still also be an APS-C size sensor as well, but haven't read that much in the rumors...

There isn't really anything 18-55 that is FF compatible, because that range on FF is very wide. The closest is probably the Canon 17-40 f/4L. Very good lens, but costs more than the 3rd party ~17-50 f/2.8 with less speed. However it does have USM, which the 3rd party lenses don't. (I think the Sigma doesn't)

I forgot to also suggest a flash in my last post. It is basically a need if shooting people.

The Rebel line (known as 300D, 450D, 1000D, etc in europe) and the xxD line (40D/50D) are 1.6x crop sensor. One the single digit cameras (5D, 1D) are full frame. And the 1Ds is FF, the 1D is 1.3x crop.

I also forgot to mention my church just opened a new building and we started doing live video during worship and the service. I was surprised how much I liked it, and how much I felt like it really was worth doing.

eagle17
04-07-2009, 02:28 PM
OK if I were to start out all over again I would get the xsi for probably $200 less of even get a used one for $400 range.

then I would buy 3 or 4 lenses depending on my budget...

used canon 70-200 F2.8L (non-is) should be able to find one for $800
tamron 28-75 F2.8 new $4xx used $300ish
used or new canon 17-40 F4.0L $500ish range

and I would buy the canon 50 F1.8 for less than $100

the 50 is a great portrait lens very sharp and very fun but you need to shoot in good conditions (well lit)

as for the camera body I would recomend a used 5D or 5Dm2 over the 50D 40D 60D

and I would agree with Nick buy something then worry about taking pictures before trying to get everything you think you need right now... your priorities for lenses will change over time...

a greate place to find used gear is fredmiranda's buy and sell forum although you now need to purcase membership to make transactions...

geogecko
04-07-2009, 03:49 PM
Wow, lots of interesting feedback, I'm glad I didn't make a rush decision to buy something.

I will read these over more, maybe have to print them out, and try and gather my thoughts. I didn't think I'd get this big of a response, this is the first time I've been to DCR before, but I can't stand the forums at DPReview.

I have to admit, that between the XSi and the 50D that I looked at, the 50D felt better in my hand, than the XSi, even though the 50D was heavier (well, it also had a heavier lens on it).

I will have to see what I could do about getting a 1D or 5D, but that is probably going to put me way out of my price range, unless I find a good deal used or something. I think the 50D would probably be everything I could want in a camera, at least, right now...The T1i may even be enough, but I see where you are coming from, regarding the ergonomics.

So, is Tamron considered one of the top lens makers, similar to Canon?

laydros
04-07-2009, 04:12 PM
A used 5D classic can be found for about as much as a new 50D.



So, is Tamron considered one of the top lens makers, similar to Canon?

Tough question. Most people will tell you that Olympus, Nikon, Canon, etc are optics companies. They make camera bodies to sell lenses. They make other things like binoculars, microscopes, etc.

This isn't entirely true anymore, because they make most of their money selling entry level DSLRs and point and shoots. Or printers in Canon's case.

Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina are very good third party lens makers. The optical quality of their good lenses are (arguably) as good as a good Canon or Nikon. Typically the build quality is not as good. If price and features (USM, AF, zoom, weather sealing, size, weight) are not in the equation, you should just buy Carl Zeiss or Leica glass. But in reality price and features are almost always a huge consideration. So people buy Canon or Nikon lenses, or if budget is an issue, they buy Tamron or Sigma or Tokina. Often one of the third party makers will offer a lens that isn't available in OEM mount. That and price are good times to go with 3rd party.

And basically, unless you can afford to only buy Canon L glass, there are a lot of situations where 3rd party can be just as good.

A good example is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. Sells new for $1200. Sigma sells a 24-70 f/2.8 for $400, and Tamron sells a 28-75 f/2.8 for $400. Neither of the 3rd party have USM (for quick and quiet AF) or weather sealing. They are both lighter, which is typically good. And many reviews say that the 3rd party lenses are optically just as good. Often when people say that they aren't taking into consideration things like CA (purple fringing) and lens flare.

Heres a long thread about 3rd party lenses from POTN. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=567242)

D Thompson
04-07-2009, 04:18 PM
Also, will I miss anything by not having coverage in the 56-69mm range?
Nothing that 1 step forward or backwards won't solve. The 17-55 and whichever 70-200 would make a good combo.

TheObiJuan
04-07-2009, 07:37 PM
Damn, lots of good advice here.
No need for much input as much of what I would have said, was said.

Tamron and Sigma both make the 70-200 f/2.8, but get Canon's as it is guaranteed to focus right, unlike the Sigma :rolleyes:

geogecko
04-08-2009, 10:18 AM
Thanks, everyone.

After much consideration, I am now thinking, possibly, about going with a 5DMKII. I read the review of the 50D on DP Review, and wasn't that impressed with what they had to say (rather, I found that what they said about the camera wasn't that impressive). It appears, that they are nearing the limit of MP in the 1.6x sensor, or maybe not the limit, but the point at which it doesn't make since to increase the MP.

With that said, is there any reason to believe that FF cameras will go away, in favor of the 1.6 or 1.3 crop sensors? Or could it possibly be the other way around?

So, back on topic of lenses, if I went with the FF camera, my guess is that the 24-105 F4L lens that can be had with the 5DMKII, is a really good lens. The other awesome thing, from my limited experience, is that a good match to this would be the 100-400L IS, which of course, weighs 3lbs, but the neat thing is that these two lenses would cover basically an entire range from 24-400mm. Then, later on, I could get primes to throw in where I wanted better results. Actually, if I went this route, I would probably only get the 24-105 for now, and wait on the telephoto zoom lens until later. I like the fact that I'm getting up to 105mm, versus the 88mm of the 17-55 on the 1.6 sensor. May not really notice it that much, I don't know.

So, does that sound like a good initial plan, and road map? Depending on if I need the 400mm or not, I may even skip the 100-400, and go with a 200 or 300 lens.

On the topic of flashes, The 430EXII seems to be compatible with setting up the flash within the camera menus of all the EOS cameras, but in particular, the 580EXII says that it only works with the setup menu of the 1D. Is this true? Would it make since for me to just get one of the 430's for now? I don't know a lot about these yet, but can these flashes be triggered remotely, like via IR or wireless?

raven15
04-08-2009, 10:04 PM
After much consideration, I am now thinking, possibly, about going with a 5DMKII.


Whoa there! I'd focus on getting a cheap camera first, and then only if my skills were worth the ~$1500 price difference look at a full frame camera. Remember, you are comparing to a point and shoot, so any DSLR will be a vast improvement. I highly doubt you would miss the photo quality difference of the 5DII, it is almost certainly your own skills that will limit photo quality at this point, rather than the difference between a Rebel and 50D and a 5DII.

TheWengler
04-09-2009, 01:21 AM
Whoa there! I'd focus on getting a cheap camera first, and then only if my skills were worth the ~$1500 price difference look at a full frame camera.

100% agree with this (unless you have piles of money to burn). If I were you then I'd start with entry level gear. It will help you figure out what you're doing and what you really need. Then if it's justified you can sell the cheap stuff and get some nicer equipment. If you insist on getting something nicer now then I'd start with a 40D, 17-40mm f/4, 70-200mm f/4 IS and a flash. This would work well as a general shooting set up. You can get primes for your specific needs (low light, sports, portraits...whatever) later.

TenD
04-09-2009, 05:12 AM
If you have the money, I see no reason to not get the 5D MK II. If you budget allows go for it, it's an excellent camera body. And with the lens choices you mention, you'll have a top notch professional level kit right off the bat. Realize though that as a newbie you may never develop the skill, or the inclination to use this wonderful equipment to its fullest. That kit you mention is more than a lot of working pros have in their bag, and it's bound to prompt some jealousy and some sneering looks as you ask basic questions with nearly pro level gear. If it were me I might step back to an XXD body such as the 40 or 50D, with the same lens combinations, but if the specs of the 5DII appeal to you, and you have a budget that allows it, go for it. Just realize a 5D is no magic bullet, a 40D or 50D will produce the same results in a lot of situations.

This choice(it's a great kit, and theoretically won't need any kind of upgrade)will get negative responses in most cases because most of us started smaller and worked our way up to what we have today. Most will say you need to develop your skills before you move to a kit of that calibre. I say it's just a camera and still works in the same manner as any of the less expensive choices out there. You would be starting near the pinnacle, but there is nothing wrong with that, you can just as easily sell the the 5DII and the two L lenses if this hobby doesn't develop into what you think it will. You can learn just as easily on a 5D as you can on an entry level body, it just might look a little weird to some people. Realize having all of this nearly pro level gear, a certain level of proficiency is expected, and if people see you shooting using the little green box with that kit they may look down their noses at you. For the most part this will be jealousy, because they, due to budget concerns, had to start with much less.

The 24-105 is a very good lens, I have one and it's a great combined with my 5D(classic)the range is just about perfect for a general purpose lens on that body. I also have a 100-400 and although it's not as sharp as a series of primes would be, it's again very good and very versatile. The kit you mention is a top notch kit, some of the best technology available today. There is one thing it won't do for you and that is make you a photographer. Skills need to be developed, the equipment needs to be understood, basic photography needs to be learned. With a kit like that people will expect you to be the person they go to with questions and not the person asking the questions.

laydros
04-09-2009, 07:40 AM
I was going to say don't get a 5D, but then TenD kinda rationalized it. I agree with what he said. My only problem with the 5D is that as far as I know, you aren't getting any more pro features over the 50D besides FF, and the light sensitivity that goes with it. I may be wrong, but I think it doesn't have any more weather sealing or a more durable shutter like the 1D series. It is a little slower in frames per second. Also bear in mind the files are HUGE, if you are shooting RAW (and you should!). If you are planning to spend this kind of money on camera gear, I assume you have pretty decent computer hardware, but with the files coming off of the 5D, you will need lots of storage space. Any modern computers memory and processor should have no problem with the pictures. Video is a whole other beast. I found a demo 4 minute video off the 5D Mk II once, it was over 1GB. And editing/processing HD video is going to be an absolute beast.

I think the 24-105 would be the best single lens to match to a 5D. It would be roughly equivalent to what you can do with the point and shoot, so you know what kind of range you are looking at.

I don't know about the menu stuff for the flash, I thought both of the Mk IIs would work with the menu system of any of the Digic 3 or Digic 4 cameras, which means any on sale today, and a few older ones. However, the flashes have a build in lcd and menu system, and not having the ability to control from the camera is pretty much just an inconvenience. The only reason it would be very useful is if they explain what the custom functions are, so you don't have to look in the manual.

I think the important thing on a flash is that either will probably serve the purpose for a beginner, it is a matter if you want to buy the 580 so you have more capability down the road, or you want to buy the 430 so it is more compact. I went with a 430 because I plan on using wireless triggers, and just wanted a single compact full-TTL flash to throw in my go bag. If you decide to do off-camera flash (which I recommend you do) and use Canon's wireless system, the 580 can work as a trigger for off camera 430s or 580s. The 430 can only work as a slave. There is another option to buy a $200 IR transmitter that works as a trigger for Canon flashes. It has the added benefit of and AF assist light. If you don't use Canon's wireless system, there are 3rd party wireless systems of varying cost and quality. The best (pocket wizard) is only about $300 per trigger.

And get a Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce for it. Next time you want to grab a quick indoor shot, put on the omni bounce and tilt the flash to 45 degrees. This is a go-to option for me, or to be more cynical, a crutch.

adam75south
04-09-2009, 08:28 AM
if it were me starting out, i'd go for a 50d over the 5dII. you'll have more to budget for lenses...and let's face it, overall, the 50d is a better camera. the only reason to get the 5dII IMO is if you shoot mostly ISO 3200+, shoot studio or nothing but portraits, or use it for video. the 50d has a far superior autofocus system and will be able to match(or even better when you're talking about sports) anything from the 5dII ISO 100-1600.

cliff notes: in my opinion, the 5dII is a specialty camera...best used at extreme ISOs or anywhere that quick focus isn't a necessity.

geogecko
04-09-2009, 10:20 AM
Ha, ha. Wow, quite the opposite response with that post, but I think I completely understand what you guys are saying.

With that said, I guess I will take a step backwards, and look at my options. I think in my thinking, I was trying to future proof myself, and maybe that is not the way to go. I figure, if I wanted to eventually step up to the 5DMKII later on, I'd have several lenses that would not be of use to me if I got a 50D/T1i (who the heck names these Rebels in the US, anyway), due to the FF/1.6x sensor difference. For instance, the standard zoom lens on a 50D doesn't make a lot of since on a 5D, at least, from what I can tell. Now the 100-400L might make since for a 50D, of course it's reach is going to be a lot more than it would be on the 5D.

I completely understand about the way people might view, or be annoyed with, a beginner using a camera such as the 5D, and that does bother me slightly, as I plan to be taking some photography classes at a local community college, or possibly elsewhere. I basically took the entry level approach when it came to mountain biking. I bought a $570 front suspension bike, and rode that for 4 years, until I decided that I liked it enough, to spend about 8x that on my full suspension bike, which is awesome. I also use it at least twice a week, so I feel like I'm getting my money out of it. I don't really have anything else that I am that into right now. I had thought about getting a higher end video camera at first, but then realized how much I dread going through the footage of my Sony HDR-SR1 (which yes, I actually had to replace the motherboard/CPU/RAM and hard drives for that acquisition, due to the processing of the AVCHD files)...anyway, back on topic.

A friend of mine has a 20D that he is wanting to unload. I read part of the reviews on the 20D, and while they were good, it is nothing compared to what it currently available, plus, I'm not sure I could deal with that 1.8" LCD... I think now that I may not consider the 5DMKII, I would probably like to stay around the $3k range for my initial setup. I should be able to get the 50D with a lens, a telephoto lens (possibly L glass, maybe), and a flash, and related accessories. I am a bit surprised that Canon doesn't make a L glass lens for a wide to medium zoom lens, such as a 17/18-55 or 70.

In the end, I don't want to be the guy that can't learn, because people are like, I can't believe that guy has a 5D, and is in a Digital Photography I... I will take the advice!

TheObiJuan
04-09-2009, 11:31 AM
How low will he go on the 20D. It is a really good camera with great ISO performance, but not for a dime over $300, really.

geogecko
04-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Yeah, not sure. I noticed you can still buy the 20D online, not sure if they are used or not, but for $379. If that is new, then yeah, a used one would need to be below $300 to make it worth it. I guess it would be a cheap way to get into DSLRs though. I'd have tons of money to spend on lenses then!

Does anyone make an L quality lens that is 17/18-55/85mm? Seems like the Canon ones (the F2.8 version) people are saying it has poor dust resistance. From what I have read, I guess dust in the lens does not hurt picture quality? Only when it is inside the camera, right? If I'm going to get a weatherproof body, it would be nice to have mostly weatherproof lenses to go with it. If dust can get in these easily, I'd have a hard time using it in light rain or sprinkles.

I guess the other option would be the 24-70mm F2.8L. Wouldn't be as wide as the others, but I could maybe get a prime for something lower than 24...

gilly
04-09-2009, 12:20 PM
I basically took the entry level approach when it came to mountain biking. I bought a $570 front suspension bike, and rode that for 4 years, until I decided that I liked it enough, to spend about 8x that on my full suspension bike, which is awesome.




Well I've got to say you TOTALLY think like me, I try to go close to top shelf straight up if I can afford, it after a hell of a lot of research. I jumped in the deep end, having never touched a DSLR, I bought a new 30D, 10-22 and 70-200 2.8 IS. If it's something that you feel you will be using regularly and for years, sure go the good stuff straight up. All I'll add is that bodies come and go, and depreciate like cars, but...
GLASS IS FOREVER! Don't skimp on the glass, it'll still be around in 5 bodies time.

I've since sold that 30D and 10-22, I lost about 50% on the 30D, I MADE 25 on the 10-22, yep lenses hold their value that well, Canon raised the retail and I sold an 18 month old lens for more than I paid for it. The 70-200 has moved on with me, I ended up moving to a 5D classic with 17-40 and 24-105, and that 24-105 is just perfectly suited to the 5D. No regrets here. If I could have just one lens, 24-105 every time.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have done everything the same apart from the body, I would have bought a 2nd hand 20D and pocketed the difference. If I was you I'd look at a new/near new 40D and a 5D classic, enjoy the best of both worlds, and get good glass that will suit both.

gilly
04-09-2009, 12:24 PM
Does anyone make an L quality lens that is 17/18-55/85mm? Seems like the Canon ones (the F2.8 version) people are saying it has poor dust resistance. From what I have read, I guess dust in the lens does not hurt picture quality? Only when it is inside the camera, right? If I'm going to get a weatherproof body, it would be nice to have mostly weatherproof lenses to go with it. If dust can get in these easily, I'd have a hard time using it in light rain or sprinkles.

17-55 IS has been known to have a dust problem but there's people who have used it with no probs at all. Sharp glass!

Another alternative is a 17-40L f/4 and a couple of fast primes. I love the 85 1.8, it's not L level in build, but another sharp piece of glass!

geogecko
04-09-2009, 01:11 PM
GLASS IS FOREVER! Don't skimp on the glass, it'll still be around in 5 bodies time.

Interesting, that is what I keep reading in reviews and on the forums. The 24-105L seems to be "the" lens for the 5D. What about that one on a 50D? If I went that route, and then later on bought a 100-400L, I could use both of these on a 5D if I upgraded later on.

Otherwise, my other option would be to get the 24-70L and the 70-200L (in f/4 probably). These would both also work on the 5D, but I'd probably want something that reached further than 200mm on a FF camera... The only thing I may miss is being able to take some wider shots, but I guess I could get something else for that.

Based on some lens reviews I have read though, it seems like the lenses seem to favor either a FF or a 1.6 camera one way or another, although, I'm not sure it makes that big of a difference or not.

Strangely enough, the 24-70 lens on a 50D has the exact same range as my SD550 P&S, not that that means anything, but having 105 would give me the extra reach I think I'd like to have, at least, for a carry around lens.

TheWengler
04-09-2009, 01:48 PM
A couple review sites that may be helpful...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

geogecko
04-09-2009, 03:46 PM
Thanks for the review sites. I really like FM, it has a lot of people's opinions on there. Back to more reading...

eagle17
04-15-2009, 07:05 PM
I am a bit surprised that Canon doesn't make a L glass lens for a wide to medium zoom lens, such as a 17/18-55 or 70.


on the 5Dm2 24mm is consider wide angle.... in fact the 16mm is too wide for most situations... I use a 28-75 tamron and it rocks plenty wide angle for most conditions...

the canon wide to medium L zoom lens is the 24-105 F4L IS. A lot of people use this lens for wide ange and if you want a good backup profesional ultra-wide-angle just get the 17-40 F4L. you can have both lenses for for cost of the 16-35mm and they will be great for 90% of your work (you need to consider that the 5Dm2 take stellar pictures at ISO 6400)