# new lens and camerabody



## aganda (Jun 27, 2011)

hello everybody, iÂ´m new here! was reading this good place and stopped for a cuestion.
i'm interested in buying a new camera (first one) I have saved up to 3000 euros to spend on this!!!!
but first wanted to know for (photos tooken on landscape, children and sports) which should be good lens and from there a good camera.
my friends always say first choose two good lens and then the body of the camera (nikon-canon ??? ).

please with your experience what should I choose


----------



## bycostello (Jun 27, 2011)

you could get a Canon EOS 600D Digital SLR Camera with 18-135mm IS Lens for less than â‚¬1000. With the money you save, spend that on training and you take way better pictures than someone witha 5dmk2 in auto mode.


----------



## aganda (Jun 27, 2011)

bycostello fast answering, thanks for your information.


----------



## Peter Canon (Jun 27, 2011)

I just got a 7D and an EF28mm f/1.8 USM lens. I am very happy with it and can take great photos in low light. 

Next I am planning for the 70-300L once I am more confident with the features. 

The 7D is very solid and feels better than the 600D or 60D. I wanted to get a 60D at first so I rented one and I found they removed the joystick and changed the buttons. 

I would suggest you rent a 60D and a 7D for a day then make your choice.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 27, 2011)

A cheaper body and a superb lens will do you better in the long run than an expensive body and a bad lens. Like what bycostello said, learning how to use it and get the most out of the camera/lens is crucial, especially if this is your first camera gear. I would recommend the 60D or maybe even the rebel t2I or t3i and a 24-70L or 24-105L. If you wanted to get even more zooming range you could consider the 35-350L but IMHO the sharpness isn't as good as the first 2 lenses mentioned. The 17-55mm IS is no slouch and is really good on cameras such as the rebels and the 60D, however construction is iffy and if you ever upgrade to a full frame camera such as the 5D or the 1D series, then it isnt compatible whereas the other L lenses are. I would think you could pick up a 60D and a 17-55 for under 2000 euros and use the rest on training dvd's or classes?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 27, 2011)

aganda said:


> hello everybody, iÂ´m new here! was reading this good place and stopped for a cuestion.
> i'm interested in buying a new camera (first one) I have saved up to 3000 euros to spend on this!!!!
> but first wanted to know for (photos tooken on landscape, children and sports) which should be good lens and from there a good camera.
> my friends always say first choose two good lens and then the body of the camera (nikon-canon ??? ).
> ...



The less expensive bodies with the kit lenses like the 18-55mm IS are great learner cameras. There is no such thing as a bad lens, only bad photographers. good ones can take super photos with any of the Canon or Nikon DSLR's and the kit lenses.

As to expensive lenses, we all like fine tools, you pay more money for the better construction, faster apertures, and less distortion at the edges, but those are fine points that only a expert can pick out. 

The base camera body and the starter lenses are well matched for each other. Start with them, and learn to take great images, perhaps add a 30mm f/2 prime for low light situations.

Then, as you discover the type of photography you like best, you will know where you would like improvements to your lens collection. There are many general purpose lenses, but why spend thousands and find you bought the wrong one.

Like everyone else, I have my favorites, but, they might not suit you. I learned the hard way by buying lenses that turned out to be wrong for wha I do, and it cost me a lot of money.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 27, 2011)

True, while "there's no bad lens, there's bad photographers", he also stated he had 3000 euros saved up and if he had that money to invest in photography gear/training, he might as well get the best bang for your buck and the 24-105 is going to suit him longer and be more consistent than the 18-55 from shot to shot to shot. I will give my advise that I gave in other threads that you should invest money in training whether it be dvd's, books, online tutorials, kelby training, etc... You can get a lot of camera/lens for 3000 euros but if you dont know what to do with them, they might as well be a paperweight. If you are going to be a casual photographer and looking for a camera to shoot in auto and plan on using the camera once or so a month, then a cheapie rebel xt and 18-55 would suit your needs completely... If you want to be serious and plan on putting in the time and effort to become an advanced hobbyist or semi pro to pro... Once you go L lenses, you will never go back... It's like a disease and all your gear will eventually become L lenses (thousands of dollars/euros later) =)


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 27, 2011)

I jumped in about 3 years back with a 450D + 18-55mm IS kit lens and a 70-300mm non L lens... Great I thought, I got to grips with the options, first with auto modes, moving into aperture priority and manual modes over a couple of years, then started branching out with filters, then a few months later a better walkaround lens - 15-85mm, which is great, then recently a 50mm f1.4 prime....

I've still got the 450D, but hardly use the 70-300mm, so my advice would be to get a decent walkaround lens with a body, don't buy a body with a kit lens, it's gonna end up in your camera bag forever once you get a decent walkabout. Then after several months, check your images, are you going long or wide, landscape, sports, portrait, etc - once you figure out what you take photos of, use the remaining money you have to service your lens and filter needs.

As to the camera... I'm hearing that the 60D isn't much more to buy than the 600D, going for a 7D or better now will be a waste of your cash. If you need to upgrade later to a 7D or full frame, the old body will still be useful as a backup, or take anywhere camera that you can use in places where you don't wish to take your most costly kit.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 27, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> I've still got the 450D, but hardly use the 70-300mm, so my advice would be to get a decent walkaround lens with a body, don't buy a body with a kit lens, it's gonna end up in your camera bag forever once you get a decent walkabout. Then after several months, check your images, are you going long or wide, landscape, sports, portrait, etc - once you figure out what you take photos of, use the remaining money you have to service your lens and filter needs.



I agree with most everything you said... a couple things to think about is lenses, on average, especially really good ones, will stay in your bag for many many years (and camera bodies for that matter)... You can get a kit lens and "learn" but they tend not to keep their value once your ready to upgrade and it (especailly once you move on and can compare better), aren't as good of lenses. 

Personally I like the xxD series over the rebels because of the LCD's, ergonomics, size, etc etc however it is a personal matter and perhaps thats where you should go to a camera store and hold the different bodies, do your research and find out the differences and weight the price differences to see if for an extra $100-200 a top LCD, stronger body, ergonomics, etc...is worth it for you or not. To some it will, to some it will be seen as a simple "splurge"... Only you can answer that. Lastly bodies get replaced every 12-18 months (for consumer grade bodies) and lenses on average can go much much longer before upgrades, sometimes decades, see the 17-40mm L. If you had the option in your budget, spend more money on lenses than bodies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2011)

aganda said:


> please with your experience what should I choose



I'd recommend not spending the entire amount on camera + lenses. Get yourself a decent tripod and ballhead (e.g. Manfrotto). 

For the uses you indicate, a 7D would seem like the best bet. The 5DII is a wonderful camera (and the 5DII + 24-105mm kit is within your budget), but not ideally suited to moving subjects like kids and sports. 

I agree about skipping the kit lens. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a great lens for the 7D. The 24-105mm is very good as well, but on an APS-C camera (7D, 60D, 600D, etc.), 24mm isn't wide angle, and you mention landscapes as a subject. You could pair the 24-105mm with something like the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for a nice kit. I'd definitely also recommend a fast prime, and my personal recommendation would be the 85mm f/1.8 - it's sharp, fast-focusing, great for sports and also portraits.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 27, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> True, while "there's no bad lens, there's bad photographers", he also stated he had 3000 euros saved up and if he had that money to invest in photography gear/training, he might as well get the best bang for your buck and the 24-105 is going to suit him longer and be more consistent than the 18-55 from shot to shot to shot. I will give my advise that I gave in other threads that you should invest money in training whether it be dvd's, books, online tutorials, kelby training, etc... You can get a lot of camera/lens for 3000 euros but if you dont know what to do with them, they might as well be a paperweight. If you are going to be a casual photographer and looking for a camera to shoot in auto and plan on using the camera once or so a month, then a cheapie rebel xt and 18-55 would suit your needs completely... If you want to be serious and plan on putting in the time and effort to become an advanced hobbyist or semi pro to pro... Once you go L lenses, you will never go back... It's like a disease and all your gear will eventually become L lenses (thousands of dollars/euros later) =)



I don't disagree totally, I have a 24-105mm l and love it, but for a 1.6 crop, it was not always wide enough, so my 17-55 gots lots of use.

If the op finds that he needs to take photos of large groups where there is limited space to back up, he will have obtained the wrong tool, and need a wider or perhaps faster lens. Paying a extra $100 for a kit with 18-55 IS is not a bad investment, it can always be sold for close to that amount, while, if he needs a 16-35mm L or a 70-200mm L, rather than a 24-105mm L, he will take a bigger hit

Investing in training first (or even after you get a camera), is a absolutely excellent idea.

The other facets of photography such as lighting, tripods, heads, etc also gobble up money.


----------



## aganda (Jun 27, 2011)

hey yes this is realy a good and all kind of opinions. what i'm reading here is that lens choose are most important.

1.- first of all, i love lanscape wide angle pictures, trekking is my favouret (all i can when permited) and most of the moments when i stand looking to presious colourfull northern basque lands, small old towns, it comes up to my mind that if waist non-snapshot.

CANON EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (â‚¬1 250)

2.- inside pictures not permited flash in caves due paintings values. what kind of lens to be used with soft light in those caves? 

CANON EF 28mm f/1.8 USM(â‚¬420)
CANON EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (â‚¬320)

3.- kids running in a playground
CANON EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM (â‚¬850)

what lens should choosen so?


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 27, 2011)

Indeed, the lens selection is one of the more important facets of photography, as well as practice practice practice so you learn how to make the most of your tools. You have a nice selection of lenses... on the wide end you can pick up the 16-35 which is a very good lens, however if you are also considering, the 17-55, both F2.8, they are a bit redundant. The difference is primarily the 17-55 gives you a tad more reach on the 55 end than 35 on the first lens. Also the 16-35 has a metal body and weathersealed whereas the 17-55 is a strong plastic and not weathersealed. If you're kinda rough with your gear, then the 16-35 may be the smarter option, however the 17-55 would be a good all around lens, just dont bang it around too much. Also, the 17-55, i'm not positive if it comes with a lens hood, (the 16-35 does, all L lenses does), and on the 17 end of the lens, you will want a lens hood to prevent sun flare. I would also consider the 2 fast lenses... I'm not well versed on the 28 1.8, however the 50mm 1.4 is an old design and there have been rumors for years about it getting a facelift, however it hasn't come to be yet. It also has an old AF system which requires patience. Anyone who has the 28 1.8 that can vouch for it? I'm not sure if it has a micro motor AF like the 50 1.4 or if it's ring usm. If the AF is better, then I'd recommend the 28mm. If you wanted a 3rd lens, you can add a 24-105 L to add a bit of reach on the long end. The 70-300's tend to be a tad soft unless you get the latest IS version... I've heard of happy owners of that lens however people tend to love or hate this lens. For the same price of that lens, you can get a 70-200mm F4 L lens. You lose some reach but get a better construction and very good optics. Dont forget to practice practice practice to learn to make the most of your gear and prevent buyers remorse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2011)

aganda said:


> what i'm reading here is that lens choose are most important.



Well, yes - lens choice is important. But, lens choice _depends_ on body choice, i.e. what you really need to determine is what focal lengths you need. You love wide angle pictures...but if you're getting an APS-C body (i.e. not a 5DII), then you need to be looking at something wider than the 16-35mm. An EF-S 10-22mm on an APS-C camera will give the same angle of view as the 16-35mm lens on a FF camera like the 5DII. 

I'd see no point in owning both the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - they are essentially the same focal length. Ok, let me rephrase that, since I actually _do_ own both the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  There's no point in owning both to use them both on the same body (I use the 16-35mm on my 5DII for ultrawide shots, and the 17-55mm as a walkaround zoom lens on my 7D). If you decide on an APS-C camera, the 17-55mm is the better choice. 

For low light use, again body choice matters - 28mm on APS-C is ~45mm on FF. In that situation, wider is probably better (easier handholding, since you probably can't use a tripod, either). But guess what - cave paintings don't move, and that's where IS helps a lot (IS only helps with static subjects). The EF-S 17-55mm's IS system is rated for 3 stops of stabilization, meaning in terms of handholding, you'd have the equivalent of an *f/1.0* lens - a full stop better than even the 50/1.4, with the added benefit of multiple focal lengths. If you wanted to shoot your kids running around in front of those paintings, a fast prime would be needed, but for static subjects handheld, an IS lens is much better.


----------



## ronderick (Jun 28, 2011)

Jumping on the bandwagon here (albeit a bit late), and here's my 2 cents...

@aganda:

So with a budget of 3000 Euros (which is roughly 4200 USD), I'd ask whether you're planning on future upgrades or just "that's it!" approach. Assuming that's all you're going to spend on gears...

My suggestion:
- Canon EOS 7D (USD 1700)
- 24-105mm (USD 1150)*
- 10-22mm (USD 840)

*you can also use the 17-55 f/2.8 (1100 USD) instead of the 24-105 if you want a faster lens here

OK, now with the above lineup, you'll still get some cash left for a decent tripod (neuro suggests Manfrotto; I'd say go for a Gitzo if it's withing your range - either one would work) and a cable release.

With these gears, you should be able to handle most landscape scenes while still fast enough to handle the movement of kids. 

Now, if you are thinking about dealing with the low-ligt situation, you might have to sacrifice one of the lenses to go for a fast prime. If you go with the 7D, you will have to factor in the x1.6 crop factor. In this case, you can go with the 28mm (don't know much about that lens), or you can go all the way to the 24 f/1.4L II. Again, with the crop factor, the 24 will become a 38, so you're still OK for narrow and poorly lit places like the cave you mentioned.

Alternatively, if you can sacrifice the need of taking fast action pictures, there's always the 5d2 with 24-105 kit set at 3300 USD. In this case, a FF body with 50mm f/1.4 (410 USD) is more affordable and would work for the cave shot since there's no crop factor to consider.

Again, I think the "core" gear u'll need is the camera and a standard zoom, may it be a 7D+17-55, 7D+24-105, or 5D2+24-105. The rest of the pckage will have to depend on ur priorities - if you choose landscape, the 10-22 or 16-35; fast prime there's 24 f/1.4, ur 28 f/1.8, or 50 f/1.4.

However (I'm repeating myself again), a durable tripod and cable release is pretty much a must for landscape photogrphers, so you might want to consider it.


----------



## bycostello (Jun 28, 2011)

oh and btw, to add to my previous answer.... you probably want to look at a flash and some kind of trigger e.g. a 580exII and an ST-e2 (and that might take you into light modifiers too, a cheap umbrella a good starting point)


----------



## aganda (Jun 28, 2011)

thanks to every one again... OK, yes probably i wil decline for a CANON 7D(â‚¬1 305)



awinphoto said:


> Dont forget to practice practice practice to learn to make the most of your gear and prevent buyers remorse.


yes believe me that i'm learning and want to practice. this is why i decided to commence with a good material therefore i saved â‚¬3000. this will be my hobby in the future. my daily savings each euro goes to a old cookie-can



neuroanatomist said:


> But, lens choice _depends_ on body choice


OK, yes probably i wil decline for a CANON 7D(â‚¬1 305) because i start choosing, before meeting this wonderfull forum, on a NIKON D7000 body(â‚¬1.045) and
NIKON D7000 KIT 18-200 VRII (â‚¬1 610).
so in the future my idea is to upgrde to a 5D (two bodys).



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> if he needs a 16-35mm L or a 70-200mm L, rather than a 24-105mm L, he will take a bigger hit
> Investing in training first (or even after you get a camera), is a absolutely excellent idea.
> The other facets of photography such as lighting, tripods, heads, etc also gobble up money.



My doubts are like this...

first buy?
> CANON 7D [1.035 eur]
> CANON EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (â‚¬999)
> lighting, tripods, heads...

second buy?
> CANON EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (â‚¬1 250)

third buy
> CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (â‚¬1 199)



please, which could be your opinion


----------



## Ghostdive (Jun 28, 2011)

Ii would skip the 24-105 and go for the 24-70 and if you like, go later for an 70-200 or 70-300.
I think it makes no sense, to have two lens in the same range. But depends on you needs.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 28, 2011)

Ghostdive said:


> Ii would skip the 24-105 and go for the 24-70 and if you like, go later for an 70-200 or 70-300.
> I think it makes no sense, to have two lens in the same range. But depends on you needs.



Nonsense... The only reason to go for the 24-70 is if you want the extra speed, no stabilization, and a bad back carrying the beast. It's a good lens but the 24-105 is a very good all around lens with ok wide end (36-170mm roughly) and decent long end... Then he can throw on the 16-35 and 70-200 for situational photography. That's the route I am in motion for going with Full Frame, i just need the friggen 5D mark III to come out... it's a good think i'm patient and my money gets to compound interest until it's announced/released.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 28, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> ... it's a good think i'm patient and my money gets to compound interest until it's announced/released.



Where do you get interest on your money these days?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ... it's a good think i'm patient and my money gets to compound interest until it's announced/released.
> ...



Inflation and rising prices seem to overwhelm the paltry interest rates.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 28, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



I've got my options... =) hopefully this camera will arrive when i'm young enough to do stuff with it, haha.


----------



## DJL329 (Jun 29, 2011)

> My doubts are like this...
> 
> first buy?
> > CANON 7D [1.035 eur]
> ...



Since you are just starting out and you're ultimate goal is to get the 5D Mark II (or III), then you should consider getting a cheaper body (600D) to start. Even consider a used or refurbished one, such as the 40D.

Canon Refurbished Lenses:
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_22751

Canon Refurbished Bodies:
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_29252

Fred Miranda Buy & Sell Forum (great place to buy used equipment):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10

Fred Miranda Discussion and Review Forums:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

---------

If you're going to be using the ultra-wide angle lens for shooting landscapes (and, therefore, don't need the extra f-stop), consider the 17-40mm f/4L, it's almost as wide and about half the cost (it also takes 77mm filters, instead of 82mm ones). Another option, is a used 16-35mm Mark I (the original used 77mm filters).

You mentioned you wanted to shoot some sports, so check out the 70-200mm f/4L, instead of the 24-105. You will double your reach and eliminate the overlap with the ultra-wide.

You could then get a 50mm f/1.4 to fill the gap in between those 2 lenses. Using a fast prime, like a 50mm 'normal' lens, is a *great* way to learn exposure (much easier to blur the background) and comes in handy in low-light situations, including portraits. *(I recommend that this should be the first lens that you buy.)*

In the end, no one can tell you which is the correct lens to buy. Read reviews and decide what you want to do with your camera and lens(es).

Finally, remember that a great photo depends more on the skill of the photographer, than the camera and lens. The camera _might_ set the exposure correctly, but it cannot choose or frame the subject.

Good luck and have fun,

DJL


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 29, 2011)

Ghostdive said:


> Ii would skip the 24-105 and go for the 24-70 and if you like, go later for an 70-200 or 70-300.
> I think it makes no sense, to have two lens in the same range. But depends on you needs.



I believe I may have mis-spoken/mistyped because I reread the thread and he mentioned he was getting the 24-105 and then going to later buy the 24-70 and you said having 2 lenses in the same range made no sense and I replyed nonsense... I guess i misread and thought I read his third purchase was a 70-200... (saw 70 and went in that direction in my mind)... In that mindset, having the 24-105 and 24-70 makes no sense. Personally I would go with the 24-105 instead of the 24-70, unless perhaps the 24-70 IS comes out, however unless that happened, I wouldn't bother. I would recommend he got the 70-200 F(whatever his budget can afford(2.8-4) on his third purchase instead of the 24-70. That way he has a mid, wide and tele. Then maybe adding a 50mm 1.4 or 85 1.8 or some large aperture lens down the road for the misc shooting conditions when f2.8/4 aren't wide enough. With those 4 lenses he should be good in my guestimation. Also avoiding EF-S lenses may work well if he's hoping to upgrade to FF in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> In that mindset, having the 24-105 and 24-70 makes no sense. Personally I would go with the 24-105 instead of the 24-70, unless perhaps the 24-70 IS comes out, however unless that happened, I wouldn't bother.



I can see some sense to it - the 24-70mm provides an extra stop of light, which in some situations is critical. Personally, I've recently done some shooting in the evening, when I wanted the flexibility of a zoom, had moving subjects which negated the benefit of IS, and ISO 3200 with the f/4 of the 24-105mm wasn't doing the trick - one more stop would have been enough to stop the subject motion and bump the keeper rate to something acceptable. I've considered the 24-70mm, but would really like an IS version of that lens. If I had both current lenses, the 24-105mm would get more use, I'd bet.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > In that mindset, having the 24-105 and 24-70 makes no sense. Personally I would go with the 24-105 instead of the 24-70, unless perhaps the 24-70 IS comes out, however unless that happened, I wouldn't bother.
> ...



Well shoot assuming money is no issue, then yeah, get as many lenses as you can, however as he is starting out his gear, I wouldn't recommend jumping out and getting both lenses within his first few lens purchases until he comes into the situation (and have enough training to know the difference) where he would want and need a faster lens. Even at that, 2.8 is only 1 stop faster and at that point, he may even want to consider a fast prime or two to combat that situation (my original recommendation for his 4th purchase). Its fun spending other peoples money, haha. =)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Well shoot assuming money is no issue, then yeah, get as many lenses as you can, however as he is starting out his gear, I wouldn't recommend jumping out and getting both lenses within his first few lens purchases until he comes into the situation (and have enough training to know the difference) where he would want and need a faster lens. Even at that, 2.8 is only 1 stop faster and at that point, he may even want to consider a fast prime or two to combat that situation (my original recommendation for his 4th purchase). Its fun spending other peoples money, haha. =)



Agreed. I'm only considering the 24-70mm in addition to the 24-105mm based on experience and need (and being fortunate to have the budget to support it - but still a bit reluctant, since what I _really_ want to spend that $ on is a 1DsIV or a 500mm f/4L II). 

In general, I think the combinaton of a slower zoom, ideally with IS, and a fast prime, is a great option. 

For the OP, assuming the 7D is the choice, I think the best combination of lenses would be an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and an 85mm f/1.8. The main issue with the choices offered in the second post (7D + 24-105mm + flash/tripod/etc., then a 16-35mm II later on) is that the op also stated, "First of all, i love lanscape wide angle pictures," and a 24mm lens on a 7D is not wide angle.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> "First of all, i love lanscape wide angle pictures," and a 24mm lens on a 7D is not wide angle.



Well 24mm is wide angle if you walk back enough to make it wide angle, haha. Joking aside I think unless he needs the 2.8, some options he could go is the 24-105 IS is a great all around lens, he could get that, and then as neuro mentioned in a prior post, pick up a 10-22mm EF-S lens... or you can get a 10-20 sigma, or equivelent tokina or whatever... those are good for crop bodies such as the EF-S and if and when you even move on from the crop body (7D, 60D, Rebels, etc)... and move to full frame like the 5D and 1Ds, then you only have to sell 1 lens, still have a good all around lens, and can use the money from the sell of the ef-s lens to buy whatever gear you deem appropriate at that time. That way he's not being forced into buying additional lenses JUST BECAUSE he is upgrading bodies, unless he wants to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> That way he's not being forced into buying additional lenses JUST BECAUSE he is upgrading bodies, unless he wants to.



That assumes s/he will sell the 7D upon going FF. I didn't...and I still have (and use) my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > That way he's not being forced into buying additional lenses JUST BECAUSE he is upgrading bodies, unless he wants to.
> ...



True enough...


----------



## Rocky (Jun 30, 2011)

It seems nobody is talking about camera bags. It is another important part of the equipment. I know people that move from DSLR (entry level body) back to P & S just because they choose the wrong bag and claim the DSLR is too"Clumsy". camera bag is more personal than any camera gear. Some like the back pack style. I hate it. whether you need to take you camera out or even worse, changing lens, you need to remove it from your back, put it down somewhere first then start changing your gear. How bad can it get? I like a reasonable size shoulder bag to carry it across my body. My bag also have almost an inch overlap between the boby and the lid for water and dust protection. The lid can be zipped for full closure of a quick buckle for quick open or close to ensure stuuf in the bag will not fall out. The bag has close cell foam padding on all six side therefore it is semi-regid. the compartents inside the bag are extremely customizeable. Each piece of gear should have its own compartment and NO lens bag should be used.
I can change lens in a snap by using thr bag as a platfor/bucket wthout any help. All my lenses are accessible from the top of the bag.
Last word: the bag should have extra room for a binocular, a small P & S camera and spce for your wallet if you travel a lot.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 30, 2011)

17-40mm f4 is a great lens for crop body if your interest is in landscape and not a fan of telephoto. It will give you 35mm equilvalent of 27 to 64mm. This is my main lens. It gets me through at least 85 % of the shooting situation. This lens will still be usable when you move to FF. It will become a super wide angle with some nastiness at the corners when wide open at the widest setting. Also for $100 extra, the 18-55mm IS kit lens is good complement for the 17-40mm for low light situation. I use it mainly inside the museum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Some like the back pack style. I hate it. whether you need to take you camera out or even worse, changing lens, you need to remove it from your back, put it down somewhere first then start changing your gear. How bad can it get?



If I'm just carrying one body and one or two lenses (or one lens and a flash), then I use a Lowepro Toploader Pro (65AW for standard lens, 75AW for telezoom), with the other lens or flash in a LensCase or S&F Quick Flex Pouch attached to the side. But, if I'm carrying a substantial amount of gear, I definitely prefer the backpack-style bag. A sling or messenger bag, where the weight is all on one shoulder, is not the ideal way to carry a moderately heavy load. I use a Lowepro Flipside 400AW. When you carry the gear, weight is distributed mostly to the hips and some to the shoulders - I've carried a gripped body and 5-6 lenses (including one or two big white zooms), a total load of 22 lbs/10 kg, and worn that comfortably all day. It's also great for urban environments, since the main compartment opens in front (i.e. the area of the bag that's against your back) for greater security. It also has an all-weather cover. It's designed to deal with the exact issue you mention - instead of taking it off to access the bag or change lenses, you slip off the shoulder straps but leave the hip belt on, and rotate the bag around to the front. It becomes a nice platform for changing lenses, and you never have to set it down.



Rocky said:


> 17-40mm f4 is a great lens for crop body if your interest is in landscape and not a fan of telephoto. It will give you 35mm equilvalent of 27 to 64mm. This is my main lens. It gets me through at least 85 % of the shooting situation. This lens will still be usable when you move to FF. It will become a super wide angle with some nastiness at the corners when wide open at the widest setting. Also for $100 extra, the 18-55mm IS kit lens is good complement for the 17-40mm for low light situation. I use it mainly inside the museum.



I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over the EF 17-40mm f/4L for use on an APS-C camera. Despite the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body, the 17-40mm still has more distortion and is a little less sharp than the 17-55mm. The 17-55mm reaches into the short tele range, offers f/2.8 for better low light performance and also activates the high-precision center AF point, the lens has IS. AFAIK, there are only two arguments in favor of using the 17-40mm over the 17-55mm on an APS-C camera - one, you're buying a FF camera in the next few months and two, you need a weather sealed lens. If you plan to go FF 'eventually' or 'sometime soon' you're better off getting the right/best lens(es) for your current body - high end EF-S lenses like the 17-55mm hold their value well (I bought mine 1.5 years ago, and today I could sell it for more than I paid for it). Also, some folks go FF but keep a crop body (I did), and so still have a use for the 17-55mm. Regarding weather sealing, it's only necessary if you have a 7D (the only semi-sealed crop body), and you plan to shoot in the rain. Personally, the tradeoffs in versatility would not be worth it just for the weather sealing.


----------



## aganda (Jul 4, 2011)

hello again, thanks for all ideas that could give me a way to see the best buy. look i made a small list for day 23 july and this is my idea
CANON 5D KIT 24-70 L USM 2760
CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM	1199 (diference 1561 eur)

CANON 5D KIT 24-105 L IS USM 2495
CANON EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM 999 (diference 1496 eur)

CANON 7D KIT 15-85 IS USM 1890

CANON 5D Mark II 1875

CANON 7D KIT 18-135 IS 1529

CANON 7D 1305
CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 1199 (total 2504 eur)

so as far as i can see, there are 2 options:

1.- CANON 5D KIT CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 2760 eur (better choice??? )
2.- CANON 7D+CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (total 2504 eur) (260 eur diference)

what to do? foward thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2011)

aganda said:


> 1.- CANON 5D KIT CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 2760 eur (better choice??? )
> 2.- CANON 7D+CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (total 2504 eur) (260 eur diference)



Unless you plan to buy other lenses, #1 is a better choice. 24mm on a 7D is not a wide angle lens, and in your first post you mentioned landscapes (first among your list of intended subjects). If your main subjects will be fast-moving (sports, wildlife), get the 7D + 17-55mm and 70-200mm (ideally f/2.8 ).


----------



## aganda (Oct 25, 2011)

hello everybody, finally i have the camera CANON 5D MARK II+ kit EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM+77mm UV Protector Filter.... (2.400 euros)
I'm a very happy man!
First thing that I made since my last comunication was to buy some videos:
>(Introduction to the Canon 5D Mark II_Vol1_Basic Controls)
>(PhotoshopCAFE_The Landscape Photographers Guide to Magic Light)
>(Canon Speedlite 580EX II 430EX II Crash Course)
>(Canon 7D Crash Course Training Video DVD Guide_Made for Beginners)

And here I am trying to find a normal bag for daily walk around an also a small trpod to use with this bag, maybe a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW ?

Thanks to every body and I allways still reading on this foro.

And saving monney for a CANON EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (~850 eur)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2011)

aganda said:


> And here I am trying to find a normal bag for daily walk around ...maybe a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW?



I'd get the Toploader Pro 70 AW instead. The 75 AW is sized for a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400mm lens, too much room for a 24-70mm. The 70 AW will be a better fit.


----------



## ron582 (Oct 25, 2011)

Hi happy man...

Gefeliciteerd..Where did you buy it for that price! And where can i buy it for that price

(hello everybody, finally i have the camera CANON 5D MARK II+ kit EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM+77mm UV Protector Filter.... (2.400 euros)

Grtzzz

(i am new on this forum)


----------



## aganda (Oct 25, 2011)

ron582 said:


> Hi happy man...
> 
> Gefeliciteerd..Where did you buy it for that price! And where can i buy it for that price
> 
> ...



Shop name: 
LA CASA DEL ELECTRICISTA
place : 
BARAKALDO, BIZKAIA. BASQUE COUNTRY


It was fast they didn't have any... five 5DII+24-70mm kit cameras was sold that week and with my order they ordered five more... incredible.

> body 5DII -------------------------- 1610 eur
> 5DII+24-70 f/2.8 L USM ----------- 2433 eur
> grip BG-E6--------------------------- 199 eur
> SpeedLight 580EX II ----------------- 351 eur
> EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM -- 667eur
> EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM -------------- 1648 eur
> CANON TC-80N3 ------------------- 99 eur
> SANDISK EXTREME CF 16GB 60MB/s 69 eur


----------



## ecka (Oct 25, 2011)

aganda said:


> > EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM -------------- 1648 eur


Are you serious? That's way too much...
It is only around 400eur in my area.


----------



## aganda (Oct 25, 2011)

ecka said:


> aganda said:
> 
> 
> > > EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM -------------- 1648 eur
> ...




SORRY !!!!

> CANON EF 85mm f/1.2 L USM II --- 1648 eur


----------



## ecka (Oct 25, 2011)

aganda said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > aganda said:
> ...


Now, that's more like it. Actually, it seems pretty cheap . Is it new?


----------



## ianhar (Oct 26, 2011)

Congratulation on you new camera! Happy shooting happy man. And you really got yourself a good deal there


----------



## aganda (Oct 26, 2011)

ecka said:


> aganda said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...


----------

