Greenie photographer : Making the switch to DSLR

[Werz]

Hello!

Well, so far I've only used point-and-shoot cameras in my life. I'm at a point where I want to make the jump to DSLR and really get serious about photography (still a hobby though), so I'm currently trying to decide what I'd need to buy. I'm also reading tons of materials on photography, watching videos, anything I can absorb to learn more. I also love to read tons of reviews but right now I think I've read so much I'm just completely confused. Hopefully you guys can help me a bit

What I enjoy to photograph, in order (unfortunately, everything) :
- Wildlife
- Landscape
- Macro
- Portraits

The body is set in stone, I'm really going for the Canon EOS 7D Mark II (getting the body only though, no kit lens).

As for each category, some I know what to get and some I'm not sure anymore.

- Wildlife (and some sports) : Going for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (decided)
- Landscape : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated
- Macro : Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM (decided, might buy a bit later though)
- Portraits : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated

I am hoping to combine the Landscape and Portraits into one lens, if possible (but a quality one). That would help keep the cost down and also to not switch lens too often. Would be great on trips to just carry one lens while walking. I do take a lot more landscape photos than portrait though. I would prefer (and feel safer) if that lens had image stabilization. I'd say my budget for that combined lens would be 1500$ or lower (lower would be nice of course!).

Some lens I've looked into so far :
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM (could come with the body as a very nice rebate)
- Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM
- Canon EF 35MM F1.4L USM
- Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM LENS
etc.

Please keep in mind that this is a crop body so I need something that will still be able to get some beautiful large landscapes, if possible!

Thank you for any help

 

[LJ3Jim]

The 7D2, 100-400, and 100 macro are excellent choices. I would wait a bit on the 100-400 just to see if Canon does release a new one.

I don't think of "portrait" and "landscape" as being the same lens. For me, landscape would be something like the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 or the EF 16-35 F/4 IS. For portraits, the 100 macro can do an excellent job. If it's too long, the 85 is a great lens.

FYI, the EF-S 18-135 STM kit lens is very good. It doesn't cost much when in the kit, and it might be just the ticket for your "walk around" lens.

 

[monkey44]

Did you see the thread that predicts a new version of the 100-400 coming in a month or two? The existing 100-400 is a very nice lens (part of my kit) but the new version will (probably) have better glass and better image stabilization -- the older version has about two stops IS, the newer versions of other Canon lenses have four stops in the IS -- so, my bet is new will have four stops also.

I've heard good and bad reviews about the 24-70 ... nice lens tho', although I've never shot with it -- I was planning on testing / buying it with the 7D2 (coming) and then really put my 24-105 through the hoops last weekend with that in mind - and it performs very well, and so decided to keep it and skip the 24-70 .... so, you might want to take a look at the 24-105 too. Lots of conflicted stories about 24-105, but at least the one I own gives me great shots -- I use it on a 5DM3 but also on the 7D as well, and have no issues with it on either camera. I expect it will perform equally well or even better on the 7D2 ...

 

[timmy_650]

I would suggest the 17-55 2.8 it is a great lens for crop. 24-xx lens aren't wide enough for me on a crop as a walk around kind of lens. And the new ef-s 10-18 I don't think it is a great lens but a nice lens to have in your bag when you need wide.
I do agree it is nice to have the 18-135 for when you just want to walk around.

 

[Werz]

The 7D2, 100-400, and 100 macro are excellent choices. I would wait a bit on the 100-400 just to see if Canon does release a new one.

I don't think of "portrait" and "landscape" as being the same lens. For me, landscape would be something like the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 or the EF 16-35 F/4 IS. For portraits, the 100 macro can do an excellent job. If it's too long, the 85 is a great lens.

FYI, the EF-S 18-135 STM kit lens is very good. It doesn't cost much when in the kit, and it might be just the ticket for your "walk around" lens.

Thank you for the response

It's good to know the 18-135 is actually very good, I will definitely look into it. That would indeed be a good walk around lens that would cover most of my needs when I want to travel light.

I'm guessing if I buy the 18-135 then I wouldn't really need the 17-55 (unless I'm mistaken).

 

[Werz]

Did you see the thread that predicts a new version of the 100-400 coming in a month or two? The existing 100-400 is a very nice lens (part of my kit) but the new version will (probably) have better glass and better image stabilization -- the older version has about two stops IS, the newer versions of other Canon lenses have four stops in the IS -- so, my bet is new will have four stops also.

I've heard good and bad reviews about the 24-70 ... nice lens tho', although I've never shot with it -- I was planning on testing / buying it with the 7D2 (coming) and then really put my 24-105 through the hoops last weekend with that in mind - and it performs very well, and so decided to keep it and skip the 24-70 .... so, you might want to take a look at the 24-105 too. Lots of conflicted stories about 24-105, but at least the one I own gives me great shots -- I use it on a 5DM3 but also on the 7D as well, and have no issues with it on either camera. I expect it will perform equally well or even better on the 7D2 ...

Yes I saw the news for the 100-400mm, which is really exciting (although the forum replies brought me back to earth, most people seem to think it's another pipe dream rumour) if true and if the price stays around the same.

 

[zim]

The new 100-400 ain't gonna come cheap!
You may want to consider the efs pancake as a body cap and great little street walkabout to save a little initially

Edit: I don't mean as a replacement for the 100-400 obviously! ;D ;D ;D

 

[LJ3Jim]

The 7D2, 100-400, and 100 macro are excellent choices. I would wait a bit on the 100-400 just to see if Canon does release a new one.

I don't think of "portrait" and "landscape" as being the same lens. For me, landscape would be something like the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 or the EF 16-35 F/4 IS. For portraits, the 100 macro can do an excellent job. If it's too long, the 85 is a great lens.

FYI, the EF-S 18-135 STM kit lens is very good. It doesn't cost much when in the kit, and it might be just the ticket for your "walk around" lens.

Thank you for the response

It's good to know the 18-135 is actually very good, I will definitely look into it. That would indeed be a good walk around lens that would cover most of my needs when I want to travel light.

I'm guessing if I buy the 18-135 then I wouldn't really need the 17-55 (unless I'm mistaken).

The 17-55 is an excellent lens; the 18-135 is a very good lens. I do use the 18-135 on my 70D for landscapes. Here's a sample:

http://www.lj3.com/misc/AlmostSummer.jpg

In all honesty, I would start with the 18-135 kit lens and the 100-400L. After you see what you like and don't like, you'll be able to modify your lens collection as needed. You can actually do some nice macro work with both of these lenses (down to something that's about 3" across). Closer than that, you'll need the 60 or 100 macro. Those will get down to something about 1" wide.

I don't personally do much with portraits. I take kids pictures, birthday parties, etc, with the 18-135. But for a true portrait lens, you need F/2.8 or less to get good background blur.

 

[Davebo]

The 17-55 f2.8 will produce better IQ than the 24-70 f4 on a crop camera. 24-70 is also an 'odd' range for a crop too. More importantly, there is definitely some controversy about the 24-70 f4. If you like to read reviews,you owe it to yourself to learn more about this lens.....it has some issues. I,too,had considered buying it with the 7D Mk II pre order deal,but having second thoughts. I was intending to use it on a FF,but there are reports of vignetting @ 24mm and softness, particularly around 50mm. This lens was nearly $1,500 when released....price has since dropped to about $1,000...now Canon Canada is selling for $400, if you pre order/purchase a 7D Mk II......plus my local camera store says they've never sold one! Doesn't sound like a winner to me...but someone may have been lucky to get a good copy.

 

[Werz]

The 17-55 is an excellent lens; the 18-135 is a very good lens. I do use the 18-135 on my 70D for landscapes. Here's a sample:

http://www.lj3.com/misc/AlmostSummer.jpg

In all honesty, I would start with the 18-135 kit lens and the 100-400L. After you see what you like and don't like, you'll be able to modify your lens collection as needed. You can actually do some nice macro work with both of these lenses (down to something that's about 3" across). Closer than that, you'll need the 60 or 100 macro. Those will get down to something about 1" wide.

I don't personally do much with portraits. I take kids pictures, birthday parties, etc, with the 18-135. But for a true portrait lens, you need F/2.8 or less to get good background blur.

Thank you LJ3Jim, this is quite helpful

 

[KacperP]

For being "lighter" on landscapes you might consider recent EF-S 10-18 IS STM instead of EF-S 10-22 USM.
Newer, cheaper, sharper, stabilised and... slower and "just a plastic mount". But I guess for landscapes f4.5-5.6 is ok.

If you get any urge to get wide prime (like Canon 35mm you mentioned) - reconsider.
For crop sensor I suggest Sigma A 18-35/f1.8 instead - sensational zoom that gives crops new meaning.
Also a great portrait and evening/nightime lens.

 

[Loswr]

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as a landscape and walkaround lens. Another option would be the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, either will give you L-series optical quality in a more useful focal range for APS-C (24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide angle; personally I prefer a faster aperture, especially on APS-C).

For portraits, the EF 85mm f/1.8 – IMO, it has about the best IQ per dollar value in the Canon lineup. I liked mine so well I replaced it with the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and liked that so much that after adding a FF camera to my kit, I bought the EF 135mm f/2L (which is the FF equivalent of 85/1.2 on crop).

Also, if you'll shoot indoor portraits be sure to add an external flash, 430EX II or better so you have sufficient power and can tilt/rotate the head to bounce the flash off a ceiling or wall.

 

[Werz]

Thank you for all the replies/tips so far, much appreciated!

 

[Jim Saunders]

Consider renting before buying; get one or two for a weekend and see what fits you. There are lots of options to match whatever you want to invest. I'd also recommend Lightroom, it's worth it.

Jim

 

[Werz]

Consider renting before buying; get one or two for a weekend and see what fits you. There are lots of options to match whatever you want to invest. I'd also recommend Lightroom, it's worth it.

Jim

I was thinking about renting but it's rather pricy For a weekend for a body and 1-2 lens it would cost me over 200$... yikes.

 

[monkey44]

Take a look at the Canon Loyalty programs -- for savings -- or Refurbished at Canon, Adorama, B&H too -- some good savings there, and the Refurbished come with full one year warranty - just like new warranty. I've only bought one Refurb (a 7D), but it looked brand new when it arrived. Could not tell it wasn't new, and when Canon repaired it - came here with a shutter count of "FOUR" ... not a mark on it. Complete package, battery, charger, wires, etc ...

 

[Jim Saunders]

Consider renting before buying; get one or two for a weekend and see what fits you. There are lots of options to match whatever you want to invest. I'd also recommend Lightroom, it's worth it.

Jim

I was thinking about renting but it's rather pricy For a weekend for a body and 1-2 lens it would cost me over 200$... yikes.

I didn't mean to suggest renting a body Is there a camera club in your area? You might be able to find a copy of a lens you like to try that way.

For glass I'd look at a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 but not the VC (stabilized) one; I have one and as much as the zoom ring turns the wrong way and the AF is noisy the optics are awfully good for a fast zoom for that kind of money. That and a zoom telephoto (55-250 maybe?) should be enough to give you an idea of what you want if you want to invest in great lenses after, and they can usually be bought, used and resold at no more than a small loss.

Whatever you settle on, have fun with it and let us know how it goes for you.

Jim

 

[Werz]

I didn't mean to suggest renting a body Is there a camera club in your area? You might be able to find a copy of a lens you like to try that way.

For glass I'd look at a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 but not the VC (stabilized) one; I have one and as much as the zoom ring turns the wrong way and the AF is noisy the optics are awfully good for a fast zoom for that kind of money. That and a zoom telephoto (55-250 maybe?) should be enough to give you an idea of what you want if you want to invest in great lenses after, and they can usually be bought, used and resold at no more than a small loss.

Whatever you settle on, have fun with it and let us know how it goes for you.

Jim

Ahh, that makes more sense I'm not sure about a camera club, would need to look.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, can't wait to actually buy all that equipment and start using it

 

[PCM-madison]

For wildlife, I think the 7D Mark ii is a great choice. I have one on pre-order. Because you express an interest in other types of photography (landscape, macro, portraits), you should seriously consider full frame options. Earlier this year, I took a trip to Glacier National Park and brought my 6D and 60D along with several lenses. I took equivalent landscape and other non-focal-length-limited photos with both cameras, and the 6D was clearly superior to the 60D. I expect the 7D mark ii will excel at wildlife and sports, but I plan to keep my 6D for other types of photography. It is unlikely that the 7D mark ii will exceed full frame canon cameras outside of the wildlife/sports categories. Regarding lenses, I own the 10-22mm EFS, and I think it is a great landscape lens for crop cameras. I agree with other comments that 24mm on crop is not wide enough for many common landscape situations. For telephoto options, I own the 100-400mm L IS and have taken many great photos with it. My main reservations with this lens relate to size/weight and consistency of focus. I also own the 70-300mm L IS lens. It is lighter, more compact, has better IS, and more consistent/accurate focus than my 100-400mm L IS lens. When choosing a telephoto lens for my trip to Glacier, I went with the 70-300mm L IS. That being said, I am reluctant to sell my 100-400mm L IS because I also get great photos with it.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Hello!

Well, so far I've only used point-and-shoot cameras in my life. I'm at a point where I want to make the jump to DSLR and really get serious about photography (still a hobby though), so I'm currently trying to decide what I'd need to buy. I'm also reading tons of materials on photography, watching videos, anything I can absorb to learn more. I also love to read tons of reviews but right now I think I've read so much I'm just completely confused. Hopefully you guys can help me a bit

What I enjoy to photograph, in order (unfortunately, everything) :
- Wildlife
- Landscape
- Macro
- Portraits

The body is set in stone, I'm really going for the Canon EOS 7D Mark II (getting the body only though, no kit lens).

As for each category, some I know what to get and some I'm not sure anymore.

- Wildlife (and some sports) : Going for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (decided)
- Landscape : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated
- Macro : Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM (decided, might buy a bit later though)
- Portraits : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated

I am hoping to combine the Landscape and Portraits into one lens, if possible (but a quality one). That would help keep the cost down and also to not switch lens too often. Would be great on trips to just carry one lens while walking. I do take a lot more landscape photos than portrait though. I would prefer (and feel safer) if that lens had image stabilization. I'd say my budget for that combined lens would be 1500$ or lower (lower would be nice of course!).

Some lens I've looked into so far :
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM (could come with the body as a very nice rebate)
- Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM
- Canon EF 35MM F1.4L USM
- Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM LENS
etc.

Please keep in mind that this is a crop body so I need something that will still be able to get some beautiful large landscapes, if possible!

Thank you for any help

Here are some choices I would consider for landscape/standard zoom (in order of priority):

1. 17-55 f/2.8 IS: provides a longer range, so you can use it for portraits on crop, has IS, about $ 800, very sharp and an excellent lens to boot
2. 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS: much longer range and therefore very versatile, has IS, about $ 600, as sharp as the 17-55.
3. 16-35 f/4 L IS: good focal length on crops for landscape, has IS, about 1.2K, tack sharp acc. to reviews
[I would advice against the 16-35 f/2.8 as it provides narrower range, no IS, and is not very sharp wide open according to most users. I haven't used it, and it is probably a great lens on FF- but provides NO advantage over the 17-55 on crop sensors, especially since you are probably not switching to FF right after buying a brand new lens. The 24-70 is not a good range on crop if you shoot landscapes more and don't KNOW yet if you will be satisfied being limited to a 35mm FF equivalent. The 35/1.4 is a great lens on FF and a fantastic street/low light full body portrait lens on crop. It is a great lens if you are okay with a limited focal length, but probably not the ideal first lens to buy]

Options 1 and 2 will let you avoid getting a portrait lens for a while. Both lenses are very usable wide open, and 50-55mm is a great range for portrait on APS-C. On the other hand, 3 and 4 are far better lenses for landscape and generally newer, sharper lenses, but will require you get a separate portrait lens.

I didn't mention the 18-135 because the 15-85 is a far better choice IMO- the difference between 15mm and 18mm is significant on the wide end, but on the tele end 85mm-135mm might not be that beneficial, especially if you have a dedicated tele lens. Plus the IQ and build quality is significantly better on the 15-85 wrt the 18-135. And I feel STM is too slow and noisy compared to USM, but that might just be me (it's okay on the pancakes, tho').

Here are some portrait choices:
1. As Neuro mentioned: 85/1.8 if you prefer headshots
2. 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 if you prefer more half-body traditional portraits: DO NOT get the 50/1.4 if you are getting the 17-55. The 50/1.4 isn't that sharp wider than f/2.8 and the 17-55 is better wide open than the 50mm at the same aperture. You can, however, get the 50/1.8 as it will serve as a low-light lens in a pinch and has a really low price. In fact, I almost always recommend the 50/1.8 as the first prime as the images wide open will feel like magic (yeah, the 50/1.4 is slightly better but not worth the extra price IMO given its performance below f/2.8 ).

By the way, the 18-55mm is a perfectly capable lens for all the purposes. So you might just want to use it for a year or so until you know what you want and then make a more informed purchase.