What would you do if you had $2000, a 5DII and no lenses?

[pini]

Please say what do you use to photograph before the answering the question!
I just want to know what would you guys do if you were me!

Thanks!

 

[RGF]

What I photograph is not important, what you want photograph is important.

 

[meenanm]

Re: What would you do if you had $2000, a 5D and no lenses.

Depends on what you want to shoot. For me, in order I'd likely look at the following and decide which one I would use the most and benefit the most from using.

Canon 70-200 F 2.8L II IS
Canon 24-70 f2.8L II

 

[pini]

I am curious to know what people that photograph other things would do too! Thats why I said that.

But if you want to know, I like to photograph people working, not rich people, people from deep Brazil, where I live now. In the farms for example.

(I'm talking about $2000 in US prices, of course).

 

[RLPhoto]

28mm 1.8

50mm 1.4

135mm F/2L

 

[Random Orbits]

I like to do portraiture, kid sports, travel, and ocassionally macro and landscapes.

If it's in antipation of being able to buy additional lenses down the road, then it's the 24-70 II. It's a winner over its entire focal length but isn't long enough for sports.

If 2000 was the budget forever, then I'd opt for the Sigma 35, refurb 50 f/1.4 and refurb 70-200L f/4 IS.

 

[distant.star]

.
First, I'd be thankful -- lots of folks would love to have a 5D2 and $2K!!

I suppose for general shooting, I'd get a 24-105L and a 70-200 f/4.0L IS. That should leave a few bucks for a flash, even a 270 would be useful. And if I still had $150, I'd get a 40mm pancake lens.

No matter what, have fun -- and do justice to those good working folks!!

 

[georgecpappas]

Greetings, Pini..

Because you want to photograph people and their environments, I would focus on two or three prime lenses rather than a zoom. I would start with a 35mm/85mm combination and consider either a 50 or 135 depending on your perspective...

I would choose the primes over the zoom because of lens speed. The new 35mm/F2 IS would be an excellent candidate. Faster lens speed will allow you to work in natural light and opens up a variety of out-of-focus techniques for your subjects..

Best of luck

 

[duydaniel]

sell your 5D2 on ebay.
Give that money and $2000 to the poor

 

[sdsr]

But if you want to know, I like to photograph people working, not rich people, people from deep Brazil, where I live now. In the farms for example.

When you photograph such people do you like to do so from a respectful distance? If you do, and if you tend to do so in pretty good light, I would suggest you get a 70-300 L (or 70-200 f/4 IS if you really think you don't want the extra 100mm), plus a 40mm pancake if you need something wider. They will cost well under $2000, less if you buy a used or refurbished zoom. But don't buy anything else yet - see if you end up with a need/want that that these two lenses don't satisfy - which may be nothing at all. (You would probably have enough left over for a refurbished/used 100L or 135L; they would tempt me, at any rate.) I own all five of these lenses (plus others), as well as a 5DII and 6D, as it happens....

 

[Eli]

I'd get a 24-105 f4L (one separated from a kit) and a Fuji x100s!

 

[tron]

I would get 24-105L and 135L.
Actually I used to walk with my 5D2 and these 2 lenses in my Think Tank Urban Disguise bag.

 

[TAF]

Re: What would you do if you had $2000, a 5DII and no lenses?

Be both very sad and very excited? After all, a body without a lens is like frying pan without a stove. It may have some alternative use, but for its main purpose in life...

I would buy a 24-105L, put the remaining $1300 in the bank, and start taking pictures. After say 6 months, you'll know if you need for your next lens to be a telephoto lens or a wide angle one.

If you need a wide one, buy the 17-40L, and you'll still have $600 for something else. If you need a longer one, I'd recommend the 70-300L IS, which will be about it (you might even need a few dollars more).

As I've posted before, my order of priority was:

24-105L
70-300L
40 pancake
50 f1.4 Zeiss

and next on the agenda is either the 17-40L or the 16-35L MkII, then a 100 macro L

But that's just me

 

[eml58]

Probably I'de Cry a bit, A Camera Body, pocket full of Money, and no Lens, I can think of a few worse situations in life of course, but none springs immediately to mind.

Or

Race out & buy a 24-70f/2.8 L II second hand on eBay.

 

[Barrfly]

There are many good suggestions in this thread, my 2 cents : Get a 70-200 2.8 IS L II.
Since I took the plunge on that lens all my others are gathering dust. Never before has an inanimate object made me so happy.

 

[sjschall]

I'd buy a lens.

 

[tron]

I'd buy a lens.

;D

 

[RGF]

I am curious to know what people that photograph other things would do too! Thats why I said that.

But if you want to know, I like to photograph people working, not rich people, people from deep Brazil, where I live now. In the farms for example.

(I'm talking about $2000 in US prices, of course).

Perhaps 24-105 and 70-300L, though not sure you could get both for $2000.

 

[RGF]

I'd buy a lens.

;D

Why not a second body. That way, Pini could save on cards ?!?!?

 

[pj1974]

I am curious to know what people that photograph other things would do too! Thats why I said that.

But if you want to know, I like to photograph people working, not rich people, people from deep Brazil, where I live now. In the farms for example.

(I'm talking about $2000 in US prices, of course).

Firstly, I echo distant.star's comment - to be thankful (that many people would love to have a 5DmkII and $2000 available to them - and I'm sure you know that from Brazil too).

I do quite a lot of 'people in an environment' style photography - eg recovery / therapy camps for adults and children, church events, some casual sports, etc - though I wouldn't say this is my 'preferred' photographic genre, nor even an area I have most of my skill in.

The lens that I find is the most useful on my Canon 7D for most of my 'people shots' is the very good Canon EF-S 15-85mm. That lens covers equivalent of 24-136mm in FF format. I have also used and owned a good copy of the Canon EF 28-135mm, and the EF-S Canon 18-55mm.

So while it depends on the type of environment you would photograph people (as you said, on farms) - eg mainly outdoor, in large expanses, or up close, detailed work, etc - for FF I would want something of the focal range of the Canon EF 24-105mm L - which gives you both the possibility of context (eg wide angle) and some telephoto (at 105mm). With FF one has more potential for thinner depth of field, even with an f/4 - that can produce some shallow depth of field and have decent bokeh.

Next I would get the 70-200mm f/4 L IS - which would give you some creative potential for more telephoto. And having IS is invaluable here (especially @ f/4). I think if you shopped around and were careful, you could buy both the 24-105mm L and 70-200 f/4 L IS new for about $2000 US. If new wasn't a possibility - I'd get one (or both) of them refurbed from Canon.

While I own and prefer the Canon 70-300mm L over the 70-200mm f/4 IS - this 70-300mm L is more expensive -and perhaps there are fewer 'deals' going on it too. The 70-300mm L really shines on my 7D, and I've used that for people photography too, it has great sharpness and exceptionally good bokeh for a relatively slow telezoom.

So, in summary if you can - perhaps get the 24-105mm L IS and the 70-200mm L f/4 IS. Good to great image quality from both lenses, relatively light (eg transportable, etc) - and both have USM and IS - which are really helpful features to have. And after using these 2 lenses for some time, you may have saved some money and will find out if you need an other lens, eg a fast prime, and at what focal length, or maybe an ultra-wide angle (for that 'special UWA effect'). I doubt that I'd want to get a prime unless you have some time and experience in shooting the style of photography that you're talking about.

Hope my input helps.

Paul