Greenie photographer : Making the switch to DSLR

[Bernd Stuht]

Many right suggestions here.

Just my 2 Ct´s: Start slowly !

You´ve read a lot, watched Video´s - good Idea - you learned a lot.

I would start ( if the 7DII your Choice - think it´s matching for you ! ) with:

Body in Kit with 18-135
+ EF-S 11-18 ( cheap and for it´s Price nice for real wide )
+ an Fast ( Apperture ) Lens for Portrait / Low Light -> EF 85 1.8 and/or EF 50 1.8
+ an External Flash - i would recommend an 600-EX-RT instead an 430

i would also wait for the new 100-400 - go out and take Photo´s with the new 7DII first, you will
be flashed by the Capabilitys first ;D .

If you need an longer Telefoto soon - try the newest EF-S 55-250 - it´s also good and not to pricey.

Ultrawide L Lenses are really heavy - and not that wide on Crop.
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an nearly perfekt Lens if you need an fast Standard Zoom.

EF 24-70 f4 L IS -> not an Lens i would consider .

Buy a "Startset" and use it - then you will feel what you will need added !

Greetings Bernd

 

[tayassu]

Hello Werz!

A few suggestions:

The 7DII will fit just right for your type of photography; I believe this will be a stunning body!

As a Macro lens, the 100L is great, but if you want to save money, go for the Tamron 90/2.8 VC Macro. I have that lens and have compared it to the 100L when I bought it and there is no visible difference! The only thing the Canon is better at is image Stabilisation in macro situations, but I consider that negligible when shooting macro, because I work with a tripod. For portraits, the VC of the Tamron is perfectly fine!

Whatever macro lens you will choose, you can use it as a portrait lens also, I do the same.

For wildlife, I would not buy the 100-400. It is an old design and you need good luck to get a satisfying copy. Either go for the 70-300L, or, if that is too short, for the new Sigma 150-600 Sports. The former would have the advantage of being extremely compact, while the latter goes to 600mm. The Sigma would probably require a tripod, though.

For landscapes, I would recommend two lenses, a UWA and a standard zoom (that you can use for everyday shooting). For the UWA, I'd recommend you to get the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (great lens, stunning optics, but noisy AF and not really flare resistant) or, depending on your standard zoom choice, the Tokina 12-28/4 (same as the 11-16). I have the Tokina 12-24/4 II, the predecessor of the latter and it is really good and a good bang for the buck too!
For standard lenses, you can use a EF-S zoom, but I didn't like my 15-85 and the 17-55 is probably a bit too less tele. Also, they are both not weathersealed, which I consider very important. Therefore, I would go for a FF standard zoom. I'd recommend for not having to switch often the Canon 24-105/4 or for better IQ and faster aperture (for street shooting, casual portraits) the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. That latter lens is absolutely stunning, although it might require some AF Microadjustment. For having the WA covered, you'd then have to go for the 12-28.

So, in summary, I'd recommend the Tokina 12-28/4, the Tamron 24-70/2.8, the Tamron 90/2.8 VC and the Sigma 150-600 S.

Now, some other suggestions:

You will need a flash sometimes. Go for the Canon 600EX-RT.

A tripod is an absolute must for landscapers and macroers. I'd recommend the Manfrotto MT055CXPRO4, it is very sturdy and relatively compact, I have got its predecessor. For heads, I'd go for a good ballhead like the Novoflex CB3 or CB5 or the UniqBall.

Get many spare batteries.

Get good, fast cards, I recommend the SanDisk 160Mb/s CF's and the SanDisk 95MB/s SDHC's.

Last, get Lightroom and shoot RAW! It makes a truckload of a difference about being able to control the light.

Happy buying and shooting!

 

[e17paul]

I was in a similar position when I recently returned to SLR photography having used compact and phone cameras since the film days. I would recommend buying just the basics at first and then finding out what you feel the need for beyond its limitations. I started with a 'zoom with my feet 50/1.8 and then started building a range of lenses from there. My lens choices changed once I started to go out and use my initial set up.

As suggested by others, the 18-135 kit sounds like a good plan. If/when the rumoured 100-400 replacement is announced, I may begin to have mixed feelings about my 70-300L. I'm with you on the 100L, it's top of my wish list to give both macro and a faster aperture at short telephoto.

 

[tcmatthews]

If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first. You can either dive head first or break up the problem.

I suggest buying or borrowing a lower end Canon camera. Such as a SL1. Learn the ins and outs of M/Tv/AV modes. You can read and watch all the videos in the world and that is no substitute for doing.

In 4-6 months buy the 7D II. When you buy the 7D II you will not have to learn the manual modes so you can focus on learning how to make the most of the auto focus system and other features.

This should give you the following benefits:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 7D II should be cheaper by then
[*]You will have a better understanding of what you want.
[*]Better understanding of manual camera modes and a better appreciation of the 7D II auto focus system
[*]If you bough a cheep Rebel, 60D, or SL1 you can keep it as a backup
[*]If you find you do not like photography as much as you though you would are not out much money.
[/list]

You have to keep in mind that a 7D II is around the same price as a Canon 6D. If you are more serious about general photography I would get a 6D first.

As for lenses if Crop was my primary camera I would go for the following
[list type=decimal]
[*]A wide angle zoom (Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is likely the best
[*]sigma 18-35 f1.8
[*]Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC
[*] A decent 70-X00 zoom (70-300L IS,70-200f4L IS, 70-200f2.8 L)
[*]100L
[*]100-400L
[*]Some other primes.
[/list]

I found that for starting at 24mm is not really an issue for outdoor photography if you have a ultra wide lens. I suggest the Tamron because Canon does not have IS on there 24-70mm and it is needed on a crop camera. The 18-35 is reported to be a fantastic lens and can fill the gap between the 24-70 and a ultra wide. I also found that I use between 18-35 the most in indoor photography and at 1.8 it can stand in for the prime lens in that range.

A 70-200 or 70-300 on crop is a good starting point for a wildlife lens. But if you need the range of the 100-400L then buy it. Who knows when a new one will be released.

 

[wyldeguy]

Since you say wildlife as your highest priority I would say the Tamron 150-600mm. I know the Sigma is more prominent right now because it just came out but I have the Tamron and it's fantastic. Plus it's not as heavy (by about 2 pounds) as the Sigma sport which is helpful for long days. I have found the Tamron to be very sharp despite that a lot of people are saying that it's soft at 600. And the color rendition and image stabilization are awesome. I am very pleased with it and it's on my camera non-stop.

The 24-70 f4 IS might make a good one lens for portrait and landscape but I would recommend the 16-35f4 IS for the landscape and the 24-70f2.8 for the portrait. Now for the portrait I would also recommend the Sigma over the canon since it's half the price and about 150grams lighter. I have the Sigma and I love it. If you really wanted to go crazy you could get an 85mm prime for the portrait but I would like to point out that the 100L macro is also one of the sharpest lenses canon makes and is an excellent portrait lens if you have the option to stand back further.

 

[Steve]

If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first.

This is a good post.

OP, you should really consider maybe getting a lower end used camera and lens to learn on before you go dropping $5-6k on gear you don't know how to use. You'd probably be much better off with a used 50D, a tamron 17-50 2.8 and a basic photography class at a community college. Once you've spent some time learning and shooting, you'll start to find what it is you really like to shoot and you can build your kit around what you actually need rather than all of the possibilities under the sun.

And dont listen to people around here - they're all a bunch of gear fiends that will insist you can't take a decent picture with anything less than a 1DX and 600 f4 IS II

 

[Busted Knuckles]

Any particular reason you are not considering the Sigma 18-35 1.8? If I were breaking in - I would certainly look at this lens - the reports of IQ of pretty darn high.

Sets up an interesting set of lens options. 18-35, 50, 70-200, 150-600.

I am very happy w/ my Canon, Tamron and Sigma lenses. Very happy not to be completely limited to the Canon brand. I have 16-35, 40 pancake, 50 art (no focusing issues), 70-200 II, 150-600 for the FF. I do have the 17-55 which is a great lens but would have looked hard at the Sigma 18-35 if it was available when I got the 17-55.

 

[Werz]

If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first.

This is a good post.

OP, you should really consider maybe getting a lower end used camera and lens to learn on before you go dropping $5-6k on gear you don't know how to use. You'd probably be much better off with a used 50D, a tamron 17-50 2.8 and a basic photography class at a community college. Once you've spent some time learning and shooting, you'll start to find what it is you really like to shoot and you can build your kit around what you actually need rather than all of the possibilities under the sun.

And dont listen to people around here - they're all a bunch of gear fiends that will insist you can't take a decent picture with anything less than a 1DX and 600 f4 IS II

Personally I've never found that to be true, in everything I've done/bought in life. If you're gonna do something, go for it. Buying 2-3 upgrades for me is really not a good solution, hence why I mentioned it in the original post. If I'm gonna learn, might as well learn with the right gear.

Thank you for your input though

 

[Loswr]

Personally I've never found that to be true, in everything I've done/bought in life. If you're gonna do something, go for it. Buying 2-3 upgrades for me is really not a good solution, hence why I mentioned it in the original post.

For bodies, I went T1i/500D → 7D → 5DII + 7D → 1D X. In three years. You can sell the one(s) you upgrade from, but you'll always lose money, sometimes a lot.

One piece of advice above did jump out, though. For everything but wildlife, the 6D would be a better choice. For everything including wildlife, the 5DIII would generally be better. I liked my 7D, but after getting the 5DII the 7D was relegated to birds/wildlife only. FF gives you sharper images, less noise (particularly for high ISO shooting – that can be low light, or needing a fast shutter speed in moderate light), shallower DoF for portraits, etc.

 

[BJK]

If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first. You can either dive head first or break up the problem.

I suggest buying or borrowing a lower end Canon camera. Such as a SL1. Learn the ins and outs of M/Tv/AV modes. You can read and watch all the videos in the world and that is no substitute for doing.

In 4-6 months buy the 7D II. When you buy the 7D II you will not have to learn the manual modes so you can focus on learning how to make the most of the auto focus system and other features.

Counterpoint: what about the 70D? It still has most of the user-friendly modes from the intro Rebels, but a similar sensor to the 7D2. This way, the new photographer can decide whether the extra $800-1,000 (assuming a small price drop in the next 6 months) could be better spent on glass vs. the features of the 7D2.

I say that as someone who's learned his T3i for the past 2 years, and is trying to decide if I need to spend that extra money for the 7D2; the 6D is in the picture as well, but I like shooting sports....but I think I need the crop sensor's reach to shoot games from the cheap seats.

EDIT: gratuitous plug to my last Flickr bleachers shoot.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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

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.

The only best landscape and portrait for APS-C sensors is the all-aroud 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. It covers the wide angle (17mm-21mm with 27mm-35mm equivalent) and small part of the portrait focal lenght (50-55mm with 80-88mm equivalent).
For Macro, the best way to go is the 100mm f2L IS, that will also serve as good headshots portrait lens.
Wildlife lens, this is a good aspect to consider since strong rumors indicate the current 100-400mm lens is going to be replaced soon. As well, there are two Sigma lenses already anounced and coming to stores soon that covers longer focal lenght (150-600mm) so, I would suggest to wait a little bit.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM will not give you a wide angle coverage in APS-C sensor so, I would take the 17-55mm instead.
Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM is an excellent lens but I would also look at the new 10-18mm for half of the price.
Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM doesn't have IS and isn't very good in sharpness at the borders wide open. I would suggest the 16-35mm f4L IS instead.
For the 35mm focal lenght, I would drop the canon 35L and take the 35mm f2 IS, it's cheaper, sharper and lighter.

 

[Werz]

The only best landscape and portrait for APS-C sensors is the all-aroud 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. It covers the wide angle (17mm-21mm with 27mm-35mm equivalent) and small part of the portrait focal lenght (50-55mm with 80-88mm equivalent).
For Macro, the best way to go is the 100mm f2L IS, that will also serve as good headshots portrait lens.
Wildlife lens, this is a good aspect to consider since strong rumors indicate the current 100-400mm lens is going to be replaced soon. As well, there are two Sigma lenses already anounced and coming to stores soon that covers longer focal lenght (150-600mm) so, I would suggest to wait a little bit.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM will not give you a wide angle coverage in APS-C sensor so, I would take the 17-55mm instead.
Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM is an excellent lens but I would also look at the new 10-18mm for half of the price.
Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM doesn't have IS and isn't very good in sharpness at the borders wide open. I would suggest the 16-35mm f4L IS instead.
For the 35mm focal lenght, I would drop the canon 35L and take the 35mm f2 IS, it's cheaper, sharper and lighter.

The problem I'm having is for each review/comment of a lens that says "this is the best/buy this lens" I also see one that says "don't buy this lens". It's very frustrating

oops I did mean the 16-35 F4, just wrote the wrong one there. I'm torn between the 16-35 and the 17-55 right now. I like the 16-35 since it's a L series that should be more "protected" since I do a lot of hiking and travelling in all kind of places + winter shooting. Correct me if I'm wrong on the lens protection.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

If 17mm-18mm'ish on the wide end for APS-C is wide enough for you, then I say Sigma 18-35 1.8. I suspect that you are wanting much wider than the 35mm equivalent of 28.8mm though. So I would suggest the new 10-18 IS. I don't think you're going to be able to beat it for $299. If you have the money, get both.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The only best landscape and portrait for APS-C sensors is the all-aroud 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. It covers the wide angle (17mm-21mm with 27mm-35mm equivalent) and small part of the portrait focal lenght (50-55mm with 80-88mm equivalent).
For Macro, the best way to go is the 100mm f2L IS, that will also serve as good headshots portrait lens.
Wildlife lens, this is a good aspect to consider since strong rumors indicate the current 100-400mm lens is going to be replaced soon. As well, there are two Sigma lenses already anounced and coming to stores soon that covers longer focal lenght (150-600mm) so, I would suggest to wait a little bit.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM will not give you a wide angle coverage in APS-C sensor so, I would take the 17-55mm instead.
Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM is an excellent lens but I would also look at the new 10-18mm for half of the price.
Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM doesn't have IS and isn't very good in sharpness at the borders wide open. I would suggest the 16-35mm f4L IS instead.
For the 35mm focal lenght, I would drop the canon 35L and take the 35mm f2 IS, it's cheaper, sharper and lighter.

The problem I'm having is for each review/comment of a lens that says "this is the best/buy this lens" I also see one that says "don't buy this lens". It's very frustrating

oops I did mean the 16-35 F4, just wrote the wrong one there. I'm torn between the 16-35 and the 17-55 right now. I like the 16-35 since it's a L series that should be more "protected" since I do a lot of hiking and travelling in all kind of places + winter shooting. Correct me if I'm wrong on the lens protection.

I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
2. Less than half the price
3. Fully usable (sharpness, vignetting, etc.) wide open and quite acceptable corners
4. Much lighter and slightly smaller
5. The 35-55mm focal range, which makes it a very good portrait lens (and the bokeh is quite nice)

 

[Werz]

I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
2. Less than half the price
3. Fully usable (sharpness, vignetting, etc.) wide open and quite acceptable corners
4. Much lighter and slightly smaller
5. The 35-55mm focal range, which makes it a very good portrait lens (and the bokeh is quite nice)

Hmm I'm checking the prices (canadian site) and without rebates :
CANON EF 16-35MM F4L IS USM LENS : 1319.99
CANON EF-S 17-55MM F2.8 IS USM LENS : 1050.04

You mentioned less than half the price? Am I checking the wrong lens?

 

[sagittariansrock]

I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
2. Less than half the price
3. Fully usable (sharpness, vignetting, etc.) wide open and quite acceptable corners
4. Much lighter and slightly smaller
5. The 35-55mm focal range, which makes it a very good portrait lens (and the bokeh is quite nice)

Hmm I'm checking the prices (canadian site) and without rebates :
CANON EF 16-35MM F4L IS USM LENS : 1319.99
CANON EF-S 17-55MM F2.8 IS USM LENS : 1050.04

You mentioned less than half the price? Am I checking the wrong lens?

Yes, I was comparing between the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (CAD 900 at Henry's, see below) and the 16-35mm f/2.8 II (CAD 1700, okay the former is cheaper in the US). I did not consider the f/4 IS lens here because I was comparing the f/2.8 lenses.
The f/4 lens is a stop slower than the 17-55, so what you gain in terms of IS over the f/2.8L you lose in terms of aperture.
Here are the disadvantages of an f/4 lens:
1. Less light (you are light-limited on crop anyway, due to smaller sensor size)
2. Less shallow depth of field (you said you want to use it for portraits)
3. You cannot use the high precision f/2.8 AF sensors

http://www.henrys.com/23935-CANON-EF-S-17-55MM-F2-8-IS-USM-LENS.aspx
http://www.henrys.com/368-CANON-EF-16-35MM-F2-8-L-II-USM-LENS.aspx

 

[Helios68]

Hi Werz,

I use to photograph the same things than you.

- Wildlife (and some sports) : Going for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (decided)

That is a great choice! For wildlife the absolutely minimum is 200mm. If low light is not the first issue you experience, this lens is the good choice. Don't forget to buy a fast memory card to capture action during fast bursts.

- Landscape : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated

I own the EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5. I have been able to do great shots with it. It is not that expensive and quite small/light. I carry it all the time in my bag (or on my camera ;D). Coupled with a pol. filter and a ND8 filter. I should invest in a ND400 in the next months.
Also have a look at 16-35mm f/4L IS.

- Macro : Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM (decided, might buy a bit later though)

Best lens for that. It has a great fast AF and amazing IS. I am able to shoot at 1/15 with it without any motion blur in the resulting picture! A must have.

- Portraits : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated

The Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM is also a great portrait lens. I have done a lot of nice tight portraits with it. The 2.8 aperture is enough to get nice bokehs and this lens is just sharper than any other lens I own! As I said it is a must have ;D

An other choice for portrait could be:
*EF 50mm f/1.8. Really inexpensive with horrible AF noise but what a great lens!
*EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Really expensive and heavy but just amazing. The best general purpose telezoom also. I use it for wildlife/Portrait/Landscape !
*EF 85mm f/1.8 I am wondering to invest in it for Christmas

 

[wickidwombat]

i like fast glass so on the 7D2 I would go

new canon 10-18 EF-S for landscapes
sigma 18-35 f1.8 for most general stuff
sigma 50mm f1.4 Art Portraits
Canon 70-200 f2.8L II long stuff

and done till you want to go longer than 200....

 

[verysimplejason]

i like fast glass so on the 7D2 I would go

new canon 10-18 EF-S for landscapes
sigma 18-35 f1.8 for most general stuff
sigma 50mm f1.4 Art Portraits
Canon 70-200 f2.8L II long stuff

and done till you want to go longer than 200....

+1. For budget but excellent macro lens, the 100mm F2.8 USM non-L is certainly a very good alternative to the L version.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
2. Less than half the price
3. Fully usable (sharpness, vignetting, etc.) wide open and quite acceptable corners
4. Much lighter and slightly smaller
5. The 35-55mm focal range, which makes it a very good portrait lens (and the bokeh is quite nice)

Werz,
If you take the 16-35mm f4L IS you'll be happy. It's a fantastic lens, fast AF, sharp, great contrast and IQ. The 16-35mm give you 4-stop IS (almost) so you can shoot almost anything static without needing a tripod and get sharp images (varies from one to another).