Canon Rumors General > Australia
Starting Out
Dymonds:
Having completed an enormous amount of research on cameras, came down to Canon (the Canon felt so much better in the hand than the smaller Nikon bodies). Have decided on full frame and prepared to wait for the 5D mk3. While I will pay more for this privilege, I think the wait will be well worth it.
Subject matters will be diverse but predominately landscape, wildlife and anything of interest in various situations.
Lenses. The best advice given by a pro was to invest in glass. A point well backed up my forums etc. In light of this I am looking at purchasing the 70-200 F2.8L II IS and will wait for the replacement of the 24-70 2.8L (ideally, I would like this with the Mk3). I believe these two lenses provide me with the best versatility in these ranges. Wide angle is my sticking point. I could go with either the 16-35 F2.8L II or the 17-40 F4.0L II but am considering as an alternative adding both the 14mm F2.8L II & TSE 17mm F4.0L Tiltshift. The former to provide the ultra wide and the later for its versatility. Appreciate that this later option costs more and the Tiltshift means manual focus but I am prepared to be patient in need. I know I am probably going overboard here bit I would also like a prime for low light & night shots without using a flash which could also double as a portrait lens. Sorry about the long post but I wanted to give as much info as I could to enable informed suggestions.
K3nt:
Good info. Nice setup you're aiming for. All L...
All I can say is that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II is a brilliant piece of glass. I use it with the 7D I got a while back and I love it.
I think you made the right decision (even though I am partial) :D , the Nikons felt odd in my hands. Couldn't quite "get it right". There are some features in the Nikons that are better than the Canon, but I've found I don't really miss those. Like more than 3 shot bracketing etc. the internetz is full of vs lists.
I'm going to stay with my 7D for a while still as it has excellent speed, and that's the one thing I need more than anything. I take a lot of shots of my dogs playing around and they tend to move.... fast... ;D
Good choice and welcome to the camp!
te4o:
Dymonds,
I enjoyed reading your plans! Good and solid decision making and a solid budget! But we live only once...
To your lens plans: 70-200 2.8 II is a no-brainer.
Are you sure about the 14? I know Australia is wide but is it really so wide (I live there too) I can imagine playing around with extra-extra-compositions but IMO it is difficult to fill in so much scenery with enough quality to look at THE WHOLE frame later. 14 is a tremendous "brush" but IMO more for real-estate agents of the higher category - extreme angles sell better there.
You are ready to sacrifice AF in wide angle - I agree completely - my suggestion is - skip the zoom too and try a prime like my ZE 21/2.8 or a 18 or a 35/whatever there are two now. A 21/2.8 and the 70-200 will make your (and hopefully mine) 5DIII shine. I wouldn't bother with zoom wide angles (Only one Nikkor competes there but we are now on the other side of the river).
Cheers Mate 8),
PS. Look into a 50 prime too (probably doesn't need AF either ;) as you have the 70-200 USM already.
Hillsilly:
Hi Dymonds. The 85mm f1.2 might be the answer for you. I don't own one, so can't speak from personal experience. But it fits the bill for low light, night shots and portraits. It gets good reviews and is on my "one day...." list.
I agree with the above post. A 14mm lens is difficult to master. You've really got to get into the middle of the action or have a prominent subject to make it work. But its an exceptional lens. A lens around the 20mm mark might be a better starting point. But its a hard call - you will always find situations when you will want a wider lens.
If people are going to be in the photo, I find 24mm a good compromise. Using a wider lens, people are either too small or you have to get too close and they look distorted. (although, the distorted look is fun occasionally).
Also, if wildlife photography is in your future, a wide angle lens can play an integral role. But the problem with shooting wildlife with a 14mm is that you have to get up REALLY close. It's usually not that easy! Most wildlife photographers usually carry a wide angle zoom. The 16-35 being the obvious choice.
Also, if wildlife is on the cards, depending on your budget, there's no point in covering every mm. You might want to skip the 24-70mm and maybe investigate a 400mm+ lens (or maybe a 300mm with a teleconverter).
If it was me and I was starting again from scratch, I'd just start off with a wide angle lens, a fast prime (either 50mm or 85mm) and the 70-200 and see where my interests take me. You can always buy more gear later.
NormanBates:
* on the wide end, consider the tokina 16-28 f/2.8
* primes offer much more than faster apertures:
- they are usually sharper, maybe just a bit if you're comparing non-L primes with some of the best L zooms
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=246&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
- but the main thing (at least for me) is that if you don't make a very bad choice of prime, they offer much, much, much nicer bokeh (though I think the 70-200 f/2.8L is one of the zooms with the nicest bokeh)
so I'd say: add a few non-L primes to that list (on full frame, I'd go for 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8)
whenever I have the time to go around changing lenses, nothing is shot with a zoom
edit: some people sharing similar opinions to mine:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=474890
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version