Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: robest on January 24, 2006, 11:15:55 am
-
Hi all,
(I'm new to the board, and relatively to photography, so be gentle ;-)
I'm just progressing from a digicam (Fuji S7000) to a DSLR and am considering a 5D. My main interest in photography is landscapes (am I in the right place? ;-), especially 'big' shots and panoramas. I also seem to often end up hiking to get these shots (8hrs up and down a mountain in Chile recently).
I've a lot to learn still, but people seem to like what I've done to date so I want to step up to the next level (hence purchasing a DSLR). I've had the use of a friend's Nikon D100 for a while, and therefore I guess I'm balanced between a D200, 30D (what/when-ever that may be) and the 5D and I'm thinking that as I can stretch (due to some good luck) to the 5D, I might as well go for a full-frame sensor now rather than go down the EF-S route and regret it in the future. I'd also rather spend a bit more money on a few quality lenses initially rather than buying a wide selection of cheaper ones. Hence (finally) to my question!
Given my preference for a few high-quality lens, bias towards landscapes (and wide-angles), and desire for low weight I'm trying to decide between the following options for my first lenses:
(1) 17-40 L USM + 24-105 L IS USM
Cheapest option, good coverage of shorter focal lengths, but not much reach for the odd wildlife shot, which I could live without, some concern about the quality of the 24-105?
(2) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM
Better reach, nice & small & light weight for the range, but with a 'hole' in the coverage.
(3) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM + 50 f1.4 USM
Nice fast prime to fill the gap, would need different filter sizes for the 50 (minor quibble!)
(4) All three zooms
Full coverage, but too expensive initially, and possibly too heavy.
Or some other combination? Or some other lens I haven't considered? I guess I could live without the 17-40 but I had a 12-24DX lens on the D100 (approx 18-36 equiv) and loved the fov it gave. Didn't take that many shots with it right down at 12 (18) but I think I might feel limited with just the 24-105.
I've got a two week trip shooting in the scottish highlands coming up so I'd like to get the kit and get familiar with it soonish.
Sorry for the long first post!!! Thanks for any thoughts...
Cheers
Rob
-
Hmm, replying to my own post is obviously bad form, but I'd forgotten that was I also considering the new non-DO 70-300 IS USM, which at less than half the price and weighing less is obviously an option, if people's opinions of it's quality are to be believed.
(Oh, and I don't know why I thought that the 70-300 DO was 77mm filter size either. Obviously been staring at lens' specs for too long!)
-
Or some other combination? Or some other lens I haven't considered? I guess I could live without the 17-40 but I had a 12-24DX lens on the D100 (approx 18-36 equiv) and loved the fov it gave. Didn't take that many shots with it right down at 12 (18) but I think I might feel limited with just the 24-105.
Unless you get a very good deal if you buy two or three lenses at a time, maybe you could just start out with the 24-105 and buy a supplementary lens or two when you're sure you need that?
Regarding wider Canon lenses, perhaps it's smart to wait until after that big photo show in February (PMA?), maybe Canon addresses popular concerns and announces a new one.
Personally, I felt that the 16-35mm f/2.8L was a pretty good match for my friend's 5D, as was the 15mm fisheye.
For the medium range, he had a 24-70mm f/2.8L, which is a very good lens. The 24-105 f/4L IS seems -- according to what I've read here and other places -- like a more versatile lens, though.
To top it off, there were the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS. The latter is not a very good lens, but it has the range when you need it if you can stand the push/pull zoom.
And after working with my 1.4x Extender II, I think that one's making it into his arsenal, too.
Having a lens that can work with the extenders is nice, and if I recall correctly, neither 70-300 lens does. All 70-200 L lenses do.
To repeat myself: start out easy, don't spend all your money at once.
-
To be honest price wise (at present, i.e. pre PMA) I would suggest going for the D200 with 12-24mm, 17-55AFS and 70/80-200AFS. It's a great combination and the price is far better than going the canon route.
Otherwise if you are set on FF (why?) then a 5D, 17-40L, 24-70L and 70-200 f4L would be good. I sold on my 24-105L and went back to the 24-70L but that is another option.
Keep in mind that you will have to budget in for a good tripod, a good tripod head and possibly L plates. You will also need a cable release and an investment in CF cards.
-
This pretty much nails it. My experience exactly.
To be honest price wise (at present, i.e. pre PMA) I would suggest going for the D200 with 12-24mm, 17-55AFS and 70/80-200AFS. It's a great combination and the price is far better than going the canon route.
Otherwise if you are set on FF (why?) then a 5D, 17-40L, 24-70L and 70-200 f4L would be good. I sold on my 24-105L and went back to the 24-70L but that is another option.
Keep in mind that you will have to budget in for a good tripod, a good tripod head and possibly L plates. You will also need a cable release and an investment in CF cards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thanks for the comments / suggestions. Some further thoughts:
To be honest price wise (at present, i.e. pre PMA) I would suggest going for the D200 Otherwise if you are set on FF (why?) then a 5D
I think I want FF for a) the bigger/brighter viewfiner and b) I want wide-angles and c) I have a feeling that middling-top DSLRs are going this way, hence lens development will etc and I'd rather spend more now than upgrade in 1-2 years time. Apart from the cost saving, is there any other reason not to go with the 5D?
, 17-40L, 24-70L and 70-200 f4L would be good. I sold on my 24-105L and went back to the 24-70L but that is another option.
That combination of lenses is about $500 more expensive, 650g heavier and 150mm longer, with less reach. I appreciate that this combination might be (slightly?) better quality, but is the difference enough to justify the weight and bulk, esp as I want to carry this stuff on treks etc?
Keep in mind that you will have to budget in for a good tripod, a good tripod head and possibly L plates. You will also need a cable release and an investment in CF cards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes - I've got a Gitzo tripod with RRS ball head. I'll probably get the L-plate as well. At the moment I've been using 2s timer which works for me. I've got a 1G extreme III cf card and a downloader, but I realise that I'm bound to need more storage!
-
Thanks for the comments / suggestions. Some further thoughts:
I think I want FF for a) the bigger/brighter viewfiner and I want wide-angles and c) I have a feeling that middling-top DSLRs are going this way, hence lens development will etc and I'd rather spend more now than upgrade in 1-2 years time. Apart from the cost saving, is there any other reason not to go with the 5D?
The D200 is a better camera body. Ignoring the sensor.
How wide an angle are you looking for? If you're looking for 17+ (FF) then there are plenty of options available for a crop camera.
You need better lenses to feed a FF sensor than you do a crop camera.
The price difference between a d200 and a 5d is enough to buy a special crop wide angle lens and hurl it in the trash when you upgrade later on and still have money in the bank.
I've heard wonderful things about the d200 viewfinder. But I'd still be surprised if it was as good as the 5Ds.
Just some thoughts. Not related to your other questions.
(I would get the 70-300 IS before I got the 70-300 DO IS.)
-
I'm perplexed by the Nikon D200 suggestions seeing that your primary focus is landscapes. I own a 5D that was purchased specifically for landscapes (including stitched panos), fine art images and to a lesser degree, wildlife images. I can't imagine going for the less than full frame sensor and fewer pixels offered by the D200 if you want big, detailed landscapes. The image quality of the 5d is truly outstanding - the camera is, to me, worth every penny.
I also don't understand the "D200 body being better" comment. The 5d is built very well and altho it's not advertised as being weather resistant, my 5D has been rained, snowed, dusted and fogged on with no ill effects.
If you do purchase a 5D, try out the latest version of Canon's RAW converter, DPP. It produces very nice images.
As for lenses, it's up to you but if you want good landscape lenses that have Canon mounts and that are affordable, I'd suggest a good copy of the Sigma 20 f/1.8, a used Canon 50 f/1.8 MK I if you can find one (good for stitching) and a Canon 70-200 f/4 L (a very sharp, light, affordable L quality lens). I own or have owned these three lenses, among others, and they make fine landscape lenses. I've read about and seen mixed results from Canon's 17-40 but it might be worth a try. Also, if you want a mid-range zoom, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is very, very sharp and makes for a nice dual purpose landscape, bum around lens (at 50mm, my copy is even sharper than my Canon 50 f/1.8 MK I).
Caveat: When it comes to landscapes, my lens preferences show my prejudice for more "intimate" landscapes. I don't necessarily like wide angle landscape images. I feel they can lack impact. I use my Sigma 20 for stitching 90% of the time. In fact, I often use my 180, 300 and 500 for stitched, "intimate" land/mountainscapes. My next lens purchase will be a 45 f/2.8 TS-E for stitching landscapes.
Regardless of your choice of camera (really, go for the fullframe and high pixel goodness of the 5D) and lenses, have fun!
Cheers!
Hi all,
(I'm new to the board, and relatively to photography, so be gentle ;-)
I'm just progressing from a digicam (Fuji S7000) to a DSLR and am considering a 5D. My main interest in photography is landscapes (am I in the right place? ;-), especially 'big' shots and panoramas. I also seem to often end up hiking to get these shots (8hrs up and down a mountain in Chile recently).
I've a lot to learn still, but people seem to like what I've done to date so I want to step up to the next level (hence purchasing a DSLR). I've had the use of a friend's Nikon D100 for a while, and therefore I guess I'm balanced between a D200, 30D (what/when-ever that may be) and the 5D and I'm thinking that as I can stretch (due to some good luck) to the 5D, I might as well go for a full-frame sensor now rather than go down the EF-S route and regret it in the future. I'd also rather spend a bit more money on a few quality lenses initially rather than buying a wide selection of cheaper ones. Hence (finally) to my question!
Given my preference for a few high-quality lens, bias towards landscapes (and wide-angles), and desire for low weight I'm trying to decide between the following options for my first lenses:
(1) 17-40 L USM + 24-105 L IS USM
Cheapest option, good coverage of shorter focal lengths, but not much reach for the odd wildlife shot, which I could live without, some concern about the quality of the 24-105?
(2) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM
Better reach, nice & small & light weight for the range, but with a 'hole' in the coverage.
(3) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM + 50 f1.4 USM
Nice fast prime to fill the gap, would need different filter sizes for the 50 (minor quibble!)
(4) All three zooms
Full coverage, but too expensive initially, and possibly too heavy.
Or some other combination? Or some other lens I haven't considered? I guess I could live without the 17-40 but I had a 12-24DX lens on the D100 (approx 18-36 equiv) and loved the fov it gave. Didn't take that many shots with it right down at 12 (18) but I think I might feel limited with just the 24-105.
I've got a two week trip shooting in the scottish highlands coming up so I'd like to get the kit and get familiar with it soonish.
Sorry for the long first post!!! Thanks for any thoughts...
Cheers
Rob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
5D - No comments. Get it.
17-40/4 - No comments. Get it.
50/1.4 - No comments. Get it.
For the long end it gets more tricky. One of the endless discussions in the net is whether to get the 70-200/4 or the 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The former gives you L build quality and faster and constant max aperture while the latter gives you more reach and IS. As you wish to travel light I guess that both a tripod and a 2.8 zoom is out of the question. This is where IS really shines.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-..._id=00EsnE&tag= (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EsnE&tag=)
Another lightweight option is a 85/1.8 + 200/2.8 combo. I had this set (after selling my 70-200/4) and have only praises. The only problem in it is the lack of IS. However, the better build quality, faster aperture and faster AF compensate somewhat on the lack of IS.
-
I suggest you get a 24-70mmf2.8L and a 70-200mmf2.8L IS/non-IS.
Consider the 17-40mmf4L if you need a super WA.
-
The D200 is a better camera body. Ignoring the sensor.
That depends on what you want to use camere for I guess. High ISO noise is wors than a 20D, and autofocus is slower than a 5D or 20D.
This review is in norwegian, but take a look at the pictures and the tables. On some things the D200 is best, and in other areas the 20D id best.
http://www.akam.no/test/speilrefleks/test_...ikon_d200/22406 (http://www.akam.no/test/speilrefleks/test_av_nikon_d200/22406)
-
Hmm, well I'm currently shooting with the 20D, but sometime in the not-too-distant future I'm probably going to get myself the 5D.
Here is the lens selection I'm pretty much set on:
1. 24-105L
2. 35 L
3. 70-300 DO
4. Sigma 12-24 EX
Now I already have #3 & #4.
The 24-105 is pretty much a straight replacement for my 17-85 and the 35L is pretty much a straight replacement for the EF 28mm f1.8 that I use for "street" stuff and indoor shots without flash. I'd prefer a 40-45mm but 35 is more "normal" for me than a 50mm which I find a bit tight. And with the extra pixels I figure I can crop a bit if I need to.
Based on current usage I'd say #1 will cover about 60% of my shots with maybe 15% each to #2 & #3 and maybe 10% on the super wide.
-
Nothing's more fun than spending other people's money.
Have you considered a 2 body solution? The 5D with a 24-105 mounted (and maybe a wider prime or the 17-40L) paired with an XT350 or 20D with a 70-300 IS. Great range with minimal lens swapping = fewer missed shots and less sensor cleaning.
-
Guys, stick to the original requests.
>> I might as well go for a full-frame sensor now rather than go down the EF-S route and regret it in the future. I'd also rather spend a bit more money on a few quality lenses initially rather than buying a wide selection of cheaper ones.
>> Given my preference for a few high-quality lens, bias towards landscapes (and wide-angles), and desire for low weight
-
Guys, stick to the original requests.
>> I might as well go for a full-frame sensor now rather than go down the EF-S route and regret it in the future. I'd also rather spend a bit more money on a few quality lenses initially rather than buying a wide selection of cheaper ones.
>> Given my preference for a few high-quality lens, bias towards landscapes (and wide-angles), and desire for low weight
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56819\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, he did say he might be open to, "...some other combination? Or some other lens I haven't considered?..."
-
Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm not sure getting a second body will be either economical or lightweight though ;-)
I haven't made my mind up finally, but I'm definitely leaning towards getting the 17-40 and 50, and then perhaps (slightly contrary to my original ethos) getting the 70-300 IS (not DO) for starters.
Here's some pano's I've taken with the S7000 and D100 to date:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9930 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9930)
Cheers
Rob
-
Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm not sure getting a second body will be either economical or lightweight though ;-)...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, weight-wise the XT body isn't much, certainly much less than most zoom lenses. Cost-wise, the XT/70-300 combo is cheaper than a lens that would give you that kind of reach with the 5D. It sounds like my situation is similar to yours, in needing to hike quite a ways to get to where I want to shoot, and I've decided that a 5D with 24-105 and the XT/70-300 setup will be the most versatile and cost/weight effective solution for me. Your druthers may certainly be different though.
-
I'd put more thought into primes if your main focus is landscapes.
Landscapes don't run away.
Lots of good primes you can get really inexpensively:
28/2.8
35/2
50/1.4
Others a little more expensive but still very reasonable
28/1.8
20/1.8
50/1.4
85/1.8
100/2
Right now I have a 17-40, 28/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 300/4 IS.
I barely ever use anything except the 28/50/85 on my 5D. I think this camera has "slowed me down" compared to when I had a 10D. The big viewfinder rewards taking your time and composing the shot carefully, might as well maximize that with the brightest lenses you can get. The viewfinder is bright enough on this camera that in the sunlight you can evaluate focus with depth of field preview at almost all apertures with a fast prime.
You won't necessarily see the distortion of the zooms (especially wide) in some shots but in others you definitely will. My 17-40 is just not as nice as the wide primes. I've had a 20/2.8 and 28/2.8 in the past as well, the 17-40 maybe gives the 20 a run for it's money but not either of the other two. And while not necessary for landscapes the speed & DoF control is very nice for other subjects.
Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the zoom love circle. Unlike you I did not buy an entire system at once but have been buying/trading a lens here or there for a few years. I couldn't seem to hit the "sweet spot" with the 1.6x camera but with the 5D the primes seem to work really really well.
-
Since you are considering zooms, I like the idea of starting with a minimal set of lenses, covering known needs. Since you like wide angles, that probably means 17-40 as well as 24-105.
But I have to disagree with two statements about the disadvantages of a DX format camera like the D200.
a) The wide coverage you get with your proposed 17-40 is also available in DX format, with lenses like the Nikon 12-24, Tamron 11-18 or Sigma 10-20. Smaller formats have no fundamental disadvantage with wide angle coverage, once new wide angle lenses are introduced specifically designed for the image circle of the smaller format; wide coverage is only a problem when 35mm film format lenses are used with smaller sensors.
I cannot imagine how you see any overall trend of "middling-top" DSLRs towards 35mm film format, unless you completely ignore every camera maker except Canon. Nikon and Olympus in particular seem absolutely steady on their DX and 4/3rds format courses, with each company making heavy recent investments in professional quality lenses designed specifically for the needs of its chosen DSLR format, and no sign of 35mm format oriented product development whatever. Fuji, Pentax, Samsung, Konica-Minolta, and Sony also show a complete lack of movement away from their current common DSLR format.
-
I shoot less landscapes than I thought I would.
My current setup:
20D and Elan (original, early 90's)
The 20D was my first real camera. I picked the Elan up for a class.
Lenses:
Sigma DX 30mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 70-300mm IS
canon 17-40L F/4
I love the 50mm lens above all. It is by far the most used lens I own. Fast, sharp and shoots in near darkness. The 30 sigma is OK but the DOF at smaller app's really limit it next to the 50mm. (I shoot a lot of local bands on stage @ Chicago)
Until I stuck it on a film body with a ff sensor I was thinking of selling my 17-40.Wide was not quite wide enough and my 30mm Sigma covered the top end just fine. I have to admit that I am becoming prime predigested. On my Elan the 17-40 is exceptional. I'm sure I'll have a better opinion of this lens in the coming months as the weather improves and I get out more. On a 5D it should preform beautifully.
The 70-300 was picked up to give me a long lens on a trip I'm taking at the begining of Feb. I've shot a few test pics but nothing to form a good opinion with.
Short version, @ 350$ the 50mm 1.4 is a steal. The 17-40 is a good lens. would be a great lens if it was a F/2 instead of a f/4. IMHO.. The Sigma is a 1.6 crop lens and won't work on a FF camera.
-
I'm perplexed by the Nikon D200 suggestions seeing that your primary focus is landscapes. I own a 5D that was purchased specifically for landscapes (including stitched panos), fine art images and to a lesser degree, wildlife images. I can't imagine going for the less than full frame sensor and fewer pixels offered by the D200 if you want big, detailed landscapes. The image quality of the 5d is truly outstanding - the camera is, to me, worth every penny.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My personnal view is that:
- the D200 will have more DoF thanks to its smaller sensor, which is key for landscape,
- the more uniform image quality you get from using DX lenses on an APS sensor helps getting very high quality stitches,
- the DX lenses like the 12-24 are typically lighter and smaller than the equivalenet Canon 16-35 or 17-40, which is important for backpacking,
- the APS sensor will make your long lenses behave like if they were 1.5 times longer, meaning that a 200-400 AF-S VR on a D200 will cover everything from 300 to 600 mm at a fraction of the cost and weight. This is a huge plus for wildlife, enough by itself to justify buying an APS body IMHO,
- the D200 is more rugged than the 5D, and this might or might not be important depending on your type of shooting,
- low light AF appears to be more reliable and accurate on the D200, which helps for all these pre-dawn images where it is hard to manual focus,
- the price is much lower,
Then it all depends, I think that the 5D is an excellent camera, but there are very good reasons to prefer a D200 over a 5D, and landscape/wildlife are probably the 2 applications where the D200 has the most obvious value IMHO.
Regards,
Bernard
-
My personnal view is that:
- the D200 will have more DoF thanks to its smaller sensor, which is key for landscape,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree so often with exaggerated claims for advantages of larger formats that for balance, I will disagree at least partially with this claim for a smaller format. Comparing the D200 to the 5D, the latter can match DOF with the smaller by using an aperture ratio that is larger in proportion to the increase in focal length: say greater by the format factor of 1.5x, or about one stop. At worst, this requires about doubling ISO speed, if maintaining shutter speed is important, and with sufficiently motion-free landscapes and a good tripod, one could use minimum ISO speed in either case, probably giving all the advantage to the larger sensor.
So the question of an advantage to the D200 over the 5D comes down to comparing image quality at the different ISO speeds that give equal DOF and shutter speed. For example, is the D200 at ISO 100 better than the 5D at ISO 200?
-
My personnal view is that:
- the D200 will have more DoF thanks to its smaller sensor, which is key for landscape,
- the more uniform image quality you get from using DX lenses on an APS sensor helps getting very high quality stitches,
- the DX lenses like the 12-24 are typically lighter and smaller than the equivalenet Canon 16-35 or 17-40, which is important for backpacking,
- the APS sensor will make your long lenses behave like if they were 1.5 times longer, meaning that a 200-400 AF-S VR on a D200 will cover everything from 300 to 600 mm at a fraction of the cost and weight. This is a huge plus for wildlife, enough by itself to justify buying an APS body IMHO,
- the D200 is more rugged than the 5D, and this might or might not be important depending on your type of shooting,
- low light AF appears to be more reliable and accurate on the D200, which helps for all these pre-dawn images where it is hard to manual focus,
- the price is much lower,
Then it all depends, I think that the 5D is an excellent camera, but there are very good reasons to prefer a D200 over a 5D, and landscape/wildlife are probably the 2 applications where the D200 has the most obvious value IMHO.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Bernard,
I agree that the D200 would be a better choice for critters. In fact, the D200 is very much the camera I was hoping Canon would introduce, along with the 5D - I would have purchased both :-) I fully realize that the 5D is not the best critter camera but that's not the OP's main interest (altho it is one of mine but I can live with the 5D for the time being).
I think the DOF agrument is a bit overblown. I can get all the DOF I need with my FF 5D and the appropriate lenses and aperture.
You raise a good point about high quality stitchess from the D200 + Nikon's highly regarded WA lenses. But (there's always a "but"), I still rather have more pixels available with which to stitch.
I don't have any evidence that the D200 is more rugged than the 5D - maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I sure don't want to test that out :-) All I can say is that the 5D is very well built has has withstood many trying situations without missing a beat.
About low light AF, well I don't own a D200 but I can tell you that my 5D's low light AF is very accurate and fast - *much* better than previous non-1 series Canon DSLRs. And since the OP's main interest is landscapes, low light AF performance may not be a factor anyway.
One potential pro 5D pointg is that it seems to have a bit better dynamic range from what I've read. That, of course, is important to landscape folks.
All-in-all, both cameras are, I'm sure, wonderful to work with and as I said, the D200 certainly offers all the features on my critter camera wish list but for the fact that it's not Canon (no way am I giving up my image stabilized tele photos!). For landscapes tho, I'd stick with FF and more pixels.
Cheers and enjoy your weekend!
-
Aren't you guys ignoring the difference in enlargement factor between the 5D & D200?
In order for the Nikon to generate a better picture it has to have a lens that outresolves the lens on the Canon by a large enough margin to overcome both the enlargement factor and the fact that the 5D will be capturing more pixels/data of the subject.
The only way the D200 can win that competition is if you are requiring the 5D and D200 users to use the same lens and stand in the same place for a telephoto shot, and the 5D image is then cropped down to match the same image as the D200 image. (Which makes the 5D a 5-6mp 1.6x crop camera)
This seems to be universally ignored in internet photography discussions, not sure why..
-
Aren't you guys ignoring the difference in enlargement factor between the 5D & D200?
In order for the Nikon to generate a better picture it has to have a lens that outresolves the lens on the Canon by a large enough margin to overcome both the enlargement factor and the fact that the 5D will be capturing more pixels/data of the subject.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi there,
There is no discussing the fact that the sensor of the 5D has 1.3 more pixels than that of the D200, so I won't go over that part.
On the hypothesis that the D200 requires higher definition lenses than the 5D, this has been discussed at nauseum here and in other places, and the conclusion is that current lenses offer plenty enough definition in their central parts, but fail to do so in the corners.
Based on this, as well as on numerous user reports, it appears that FF bodies are actually more demanding for wide lenses than APS bodies for a given sensor pixel count.
This will change at some point of time in the future, but we are seemingly still very far from that.
Regards,
Bernard
-
If you're doing a lot of landscape work, you might consider this combination:
1. 24-70/2.8
2. 70-200/4
3.1.4 converter (optional)
I'm using these lenses on a 1D MkII and on a 5D, with very good results.
The 24-70 feels a bit unbalanced on the 5D when shooting hand held , but you would use a tripod most of the time for landscapes, so this should not be an issue.
Just an idea.
-
I have a 5D and have been contemplating a couple of lenses to provide me with a nice travel package for anything from landscapes to telephoto shots.
I agree with peripatetic, I just picked up a used 70-300 IS DO and was thinking of adding the 24-105 IS for a pair of zooms. I can't afford the 35 1.4 just yet, so I would use my 50 1.8 for a fast prime.
Jack
-
My two bits:
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM,
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM,
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM,
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
-
I'd skip the 24-105 for the 5D personally. (And did)
There have been too many complaints about it's corner issues on the wide end. (Not mention the flare issue when it first came out)
People are always crying for wider zoom ranges but IMO on that lens Canon went too far, it's inexcusable at that price range IMO and maybe shouldn't have been given an L designation.
If you have to have an "L" zoom why not get the 24-70.
-
My choice would be to go with one zoom of your preference and
definitely visit to Photokina. At least if you spend some money
there, it could be somewhat justified. On the other hand leave
some options don't spend everything just yet.
Regards
Caracalla
-
What size prints do you want to make, and at what resolution?
8 megapixels from the Rebel XT, 20D, or 30D looks fantastic up to 10x15 inches (about 230 pixels per inch) and still quite good at 12x18 (about 190 ppi). Upgrading to the 5D gives you the ability to go to 12x18 at a bit over 240 ppi and 10x15 at almost 300 ppi. The full-frame sensor also gives shallower depth-of-field for the same angle-of-view at the same distance, and that may be good (portraits) or bad (landscapes).
If you're set on getting a 5D, 24mm may be wide enough for everything you want to do. So the 24-105L and a telephoto zoom may be everything you need. I really like my 70-300DO zoom, but if you're willing to pack the weight and scare off subjects with a big white lens, the 70-200L IS plus a pair of teleconverters is a great, flexible solution. If you really need wider, the 17-40 is much less expensive than the 16-35 and apparently just as good. Primes are better, of course, both in image quality and wider maximum aperture.
If 8 megapixels is enough, the EF-S 10-22 is a great lens with the same field of view as the 16-35, and the 17-85IS is also very good, though it has significant distortion at the wide end. I also really like the 28-135IS on a reduced-frame camera as a 45-216 equivalent zoom, and the soft edges and corners you get on full frame aren't a problem on reduced frame. The telephoto zooms that start at 70mm are a pretty tight minimum in close quarters, but the reach with 1.6x cropping factor is wonderful at long distances.
I have a 5D and a Rebel XT.
-
To change to a negative tack, avoid the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0 Asperical HSM EX (I think that's all it's names!). Two reasons (1) it's very dust prone and whilst the cleaning is competitively priced nearly £80 ($140 US) is still a lot of money and (2) the quality is nothing really special. Fortunately I mainly use teles for sport and portraiture so it hasn't hurt me to much, but a bad buy none the less.
Hi all,
(I'm new to the board, and relatively to photography, so be gentle ;-)
I'm just progressing from a digicam (Fuji S7000) to a DSLR and am considering a 5D. My main interest in photography is landscapes (am I in the right place? ;-), especially 'big' shots and panoramas. I also seem to often end up hiking to get these shots (8hrs up and down a mountain in Chile recently).
I've a lot to learn still, but people seem to like what I've done to date so I want to step up to the next level (hence purchasing a DSLR). I've had the use of a friend's Nikon D100 for a while, and therefore I guess I'm balanced between a D200, 30D (what/when-ever that may be) and the 5D and I'm thinking that as I can stretch (due to some good luck) to the 5D, I might as well go for a full-frame sensor now rather than go down the EF-S route and regret it in the future. I'd also rather spend a bit more money on a few quality lenses initially rather than buying a wide selection of cheaper ones. Hence (finally) to my question!
Given my preference for a few high-quality lens, bias towards landscapes (and wide-angles), and desire for low weight I'm trying to decide between the following options for my first lenses:
(1) 17-40 L USM + 24-105 L IS USM
Cheapest option, good coverage of shorter focal lengths, but not much reach for the odd wildlife shot, which I could live without, some concern about the quality of the 24-105?
(2) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM
Better reach, nice & small & light weight for the range, but with a 'hole' in the coverage.
(3) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM + 50 f1.4 USM
Nice fast prime to fill the gap, would need different filter sizes for the 50 (minor quibble!)
(4) All three zooms
Full coverage, but too expensive initially, and possibly too heavy.
Or some other combination? Or some other lens I haven't considered? I guess I could live without the 17-40 but I had a 12-24DX lens on the D100 (approx 18-36 equiv) and loved the fov it gave. Didn't take that many shots with it right down at 12 (18) but I think I might feel limited with just the 24-105.
I've got a two week trip shooting in the scottish highlands coming up so I'd like to get the kit and get familiar with it soonish.
Sorry for the long first post!!! Thanks for any thoughts...
Cheers
Rob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
What size prints do you want to make, and at what resolution?
8 megapixels from the Rebel XT, 20D, or 30D looks fantastic up to 10x15 inches (about 230 pixels per inch) and still quite good at 12x18 (about 190 ppi). Upgrading to the 5D gives you the ability to go to 12x18 at a bit over 240 ppi and 10x15 at almost 300 ppi. The full-frame sensor also gives shallower depth-of-field for the same angle-of-view at the same distance, and that may be good (portraits) or bad (landscapes).
If you're set on getting a 5D, 24mm may be wide enough for everything you want to do. So the 24-105L and a telephoto zoom may be everything you need. I really like my 70-300DO zoom, but if you're willing to pack the weight and scare off subjects with a big white lens, the 70-200L IS plus a pair of teleconverters is a great, flexible solution. If you really need wider, the 17-40 is much less expensive than the 16-35 and apparently just as good. Primes are better, of course, both in image quality and wider maximum aperture.
If 8 megapixels is enough, the EF-S 10-22 is a great lens with the same field of view as the 16-35, and the 17-85IS is also very good, though it has significant distortion at the wide end. I also really like the 28-135IS on a reduced-frame camera as a 45-216 equivalent zoom, and the soft edges and corners you get on full frame aren't a problem on reduced frame. The telephoto zooms that start at 70mm are a pretty tight minimum in close quarters, but the reach with 1.6x cropping factor is wonderful at long distances.
I have a 5D and a Rebel XT.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You speak the truth!
The perfect solution is not yet born: 20-60mm, f/2.0, small, light, fixed length, non-rotating filter mount, IS, L-class weather sealing, bokeh to die for, perfect optics in every respect.
-
Stop it!
I just wet myself....
-
Post moved to other question on 5D.