Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Avoiding "buyer's remorse" in choice of 5D lenses

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
jimphotog - 02 Apr 2007 19:47 GMT
I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS Elan IIe
on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital P&S (Sony W-1),
and have loved the digital experience ever since.  Been saving for jump to
DSLR, and finally bought Canon EOS 5D body yesterday.  I doubt I'll ever
second guess that decision, but can see lots of possibility for buyers
remorse in lens choices.  My only quality carryforward is an EF 85mm f/1.8,
which I know I'll remain happy with.

What kind of shooting do I do?  Almost anything.  I like wide angle scenics
with up-close subjects and/or framing, portraitures with smooth bokeh, long
shots compressing roof tops and hills and whatever, people candids (city,
town, sea shore, at work, at play, you name it), almost any little gem that
yells macro, morning and evening light, long exposures, slow flash with
ambient-lit backgrounds.  Mostly I like natural light (so lens speed is a
priority), and greatly prefer on-location vs. studio.  Sure I've left some
things out, but basically same problem as most of you, my photographic taste
is all over the place.

Personal talent and knowledge?  Well, been told I have a pretty good eye.
I've entered some B&W work in contests over the past 40 years, and even won a
few.  I've done some B&W film darkroom work over that time so learned a lot
about the process.  Already studying digital darkroom (primarily Kelby's
"CS2" and Grey's "Color Confidence") and practicing CS2 on a friend's
computer with generously loaned RAW files, and loving it.  Plan to purchase
CS3 as soon as released.  Finally, I’ve been following this and other forums
religiously to reason through the jump from SLR to DSLR.

All that said, we learn by doing, and till I put my lens dollars on the line
and live for a while with lenses bought (unfortunately for me that means
longer than any normal return period), there's really no way to know how
badly I'll screw-up, the old "buyer's remorse" syndrome.  I know lens choice
is a continuing thing, been there and done that during my film years, and to
some extent there's a guaranteed amount of screw-up (that little pixy on your
shoulder saying "what if").  Just trying here and on other forums to pinch
some minds and maybe soften the inevitable blow.

As a starting point, I'm limiting my selections to Canon (personal taste).
Considering my age (no spring chicken) this will in all likelihood be my last
major photographic tide change, so I'm prepared to indulge myself (already
having bought the 5D body pretty well puts an exclamation point on that!)
Sooo, here's where my thinking is at:  EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, either EF 70-200mm
f/2.8 L IS or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS (probably the former for faster
speed), EF 50mm f/1.4 or EF 50mm f/1.2 L (probably the former, but kind of a
toss-up), EF 100mm f/2.8 macro.  To this I would consider eventually possibly
adding a wider f/2.8 prime (or EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L) and a longer f/4 IS prime,
but that's for later consideration.  Leaving out those latter two eventual
possibilities, and including the 85 already owned, that's five lenses, a
pretty full bag.  I don't like lugging and changing any more than anyone else,
but this seems to me a pretty reasonable starting point.  I figure the 24-70
and 70-200 as my walk-around tandem (probably the 24-70 alone if not carrying
a bag), with the fast 50 always there and available.  The others are for more
targeted situations, so in the normal course I'd leave them behind, although
would hate to be without the macro when some out-of-the-blue opportunity
suggests itself, which it often does, so maybe the 100 becomes a walk-around
component as well.

For what it's worth, I looked at the 24-85 and 28-105 EF alternatives in
place of the 24-70, but besides unwanted speed loss, reviews seem to favor
the 24-70 over the former, and wide-angle limitation defeats the latter.

As for herself and kids and grandkids, still have my little digital P&S for
family get-togethers and vacations, so no conflict with DSLR walk-around mass
where they’re involved.

Sorry for this being so long, but figured I'd answer questions before asked.
I’ll not be buying all at once, plan to start with the 24-70 and 100 macro,
and build from there, beginning with the 70-200.  Be brutal in your responses.
That way I’ll know I’ve walked on fire in arriving at conclusions, making the
inevitable “what if” easier to shoulder.  Thanks in advance for taking the
time.
Mark² - 02 Apr 2007 20:37 GMT
> Sorry for this being so long, but figured I'd answer questions before
> asked. I'll not be buying all at once, plan to start with the 24-70
> and 100 macro, and build from there, beginning with the 70-200.  Be
> brutal in your responses. That way I'll know I've walked on fire in
> arriving at conclusions, making the inevitable "what if" easier to
> shoulder.  Thanks in advance for taking the time.

If you're interested, I have a basically brand new 24-70 2.8 L for sale,
with box, case, warranty card, hood, etc. and in literally perfect
condition.  I'd love to avoid the hassle of e-bay, so drop an e-mail if
interested.  I've sold two other lenses to people here, and both parties
were extremely happy.  -Mark
(Just assume that the lowest even number is a 2, and you can reach me via my
e-mail address)

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
       www.pbase.com/markuson

jimphotog - 04 Apr 2007 17:01 GMT
>> Sorry for this being so long, but figured I'd answer questions before
>> asked. I'll not be buying all at once, plan to start with the 24-70
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>(Just assume that the lowest even number is a 2, and you can reach me via my
>e-mail address)

Appreciate the response.  Maybe we'll do business, but see my response to
next post, leaning some toward f/4 alternatives at this point.  I'll let you
know, and if not sold yet, there's a possibility.
Mark² - 04 Apr 2007 17:12 GMT
>>> Sorry for this being so long, but figured I'd answer questions
>>> before asked. I'll not be buying all at once, plan to start with
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> response to next post, leaning some toward f/4 alternatives at this
> point.  I'll let you know, and if not sold yet, there's a possibility.

OK.  No hurry...

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
       www.pbase.com/markuson

Dizznoid - 02 Apr 2007 21:21 GMT
Funny.
I am an intermediate hobbyist - know just enough to get into trouble...
I'm in the final process now of purchasing a 5D and have been pondering the
lenses myself.
Reading your feelings on lenses I'd swear we're twin brothers. 24-70 f2.8
and 50 f1.4 agreed and as walkarounds. 100mm macro agreed. I wasn't thinking
about keeping it on me, but your right, never know when a nice close shot
will avail itself. 70-200 f2.8 IS I don't know. I'm leaning towards the non
IS version. With the 5D being great to ISO 800 and usable to 1600 at times
do we really need the IS? Years ago ISO 200 was the limit for clarity with
regular film (from my experience) and lenses were not as good as today. I
think that I can get great shots w/o the IS and save a lot of money. 16-35
later on too.

Thanks for verifying my choices in lens. Last time I had decent lenses they
were FD so I've had a lot of research and catching up to do.

Do me a favor, if you do or don't have any "dust" problems, let me know.
We've all heard a lot about it, hopefully the newer units they're selling
are better.

Have fun and enoy the new body...  Hmmm... Besides the new camera body I
could use a new regular body too. Tendonitus and arthritus plays havoc on
days like this. Is canon playing around with "stem cells" & bioengineering
yet???

Good Luck,
Brian

>I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS Elan
>IIe
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
> inevitable "what if" easier to shoulder.  Thanks in advance for taking the
> time.
jimphotog - 04 Apr 2007 17:33 GMT
>Funny.
>I am an intermediate hobbyist - know just enough to get into trouble...
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>> inevitable "what if" easier to shoulder.  Thanks in advance for taking the
>> time.
Thanks for response, and agree, we're about clones of each other.  Also some
tendonitis, some arthritis, but not bad and still well able to do things I
want.

Through this and other forums, I'm understanding that I understate the
importance of the 5D to step-up ISO without significant noise.  And that
understanding is changing my thinking regarding 2.8 glass.  Rather than
rewrite, this is what I just posted on another forum:

* * * * *

"Again, thanks, great thoughts here.  You're obviously having as much fun
investing my $$$ as I am.

As said before, my blind spot obviously has been ability of 5D to step-up ISO
without significant noise, and that certainly helps in terms of the f/2.8 vs
f/4 question.  Certainly prefer lighter and smaller (duh!) and the bucks can
be well applied elsewhere.  And as several of you point out, for really good
bokeh I'll be relying on my existing 85 1.8 and proposed 50 or 35 1.4, so not
an issue in the 2.8 vs 4 wars.  My particular battle, then, comes down to how
critical it is to have a ONE-lens walk-around solution, which seems to
compromise best to the 24-105 f/4, vs a TWO-lens solution, coupling the 24-
105 (or 24-70 f/2.8) with the 70-200 f/4.  With my abandoning the need for 2.
8 glass, the 24-70 alternative drops out, so the 24-105/70-200 two-lens
solution seems the choice, with the added benefit of 70-105 overlap
inevitably avoiding at least some lens changes.  Eventually I’ll undoubtedly
add a 15-17 range prime or 16-35 II zoom for wider wide, and possibly a 300
prime or 100-400 zoom for longer long and compression, but that’s for later.
For now, the following isn’t sounding bad: 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS,
either 50 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4 L, all coupled with my existing 85 f/1.8 and a
macro to be decided. A better starting point than all that 2.8 mass I
originally had listed?  You think?  All comments welcome ... "

* * * * *

On IS question, yes, I'll probably stick with it.  Especially with slower
glass I'm now leaning toward, and considering amount invested even without it,
seems worth the incremental one-time cost to garner the added f/stops
advantage.

Been reading everything I can on lens dust and sensor dirt (the latter new to
me as it is to you), not sure which you're referring to, and will follow
thread advice on this and other forums.  L glass apparently is well sealed
against dust (assuming non-extreme conditions) and sensor dirt seems pretty
manageable.  Key thing on sensor dirt is that sensor is covered by a shield
(you probably knew that, I initially didn't), so not really touching sensor
at all.  That fact alone helped me a lot.  Lots of pertinent threads on the
forums.

Thanks again for responding.

.
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 02 Apr 2007 22:53 GMT
> I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS
> Elan IIe on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> quality carryforward is an EF 85mm f/1.8, which I know I'll remain
> happy with.

If you are serious about wide angle you really only have one choice at the
moment, and that is the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor with an adapter.  Canon's 16-35/2.8
has serious light falloff and vignetting problems on the 5D.  Keep in mind
that Canon has announced a new and updated version of the 16-35/2.8 to
correct prior shortcomings, but we are still waiting in high anticipation
for it to hit the streets.

Rita
RichA - 02 Apr 2007 23:24 GMT
> > I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS
> > Elan IIe on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Rita

CA looks pretty bad.  Corner performance doesn't look good either.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/16-35/index.htm
just bob - 02 Apr 2007 23:35 GMT
On Apr 2, 6:46 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> jimphotog via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> > I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Rita

CA looks pretty bad.  Corner performance doesn't look good either.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/16-35/index.htm

Jusy for clarificaiton: that link is to a story on the the old one with
problems and not the "updated" version coming "soon".
Paul Furman - 02 Apr 2007 23:45 GMT
>>>I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS
>>>Elan IIe on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/16-35/index.htm

That's talking about the old version. PS Jim, Rita exaggerates so don't
take her too seriously but yes I noticed that's the one thing you don't
have on your list is a wideangle. And why not more primes if you are
shooting casually, not needing to grab situations in photojournalism or
wildlife shooting? Most people agree the faster 50mm primes aren't
really worth the xtra cost.
jimphotog - 04 Apr 2007 17:51 GMT
>>>>I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS
>>>>Elan IIe on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>wildlife shooting? Most people agree the faster 50mm primes aren't
>really worth the xtra cost.
Hey Paul, thanks for the response.  Maybe I left it out, but do like wide
angle a lot, and plan to supplement with either 15-17 range prime or 16-35 II
zoom, something like that.  As for casual shooting, yes, the wandering I do
is planned wandering and usually alone so I don't inconvenience others, but
still not crazy about lots of lens changes.  If you don't mind, take a look
at my response to Dizzinoid a few posts above for latest thoughts.  As for 50
primes, main interest is in warp speed.  Posters on other forums have
suggested the 35 f/1.4 L as a more interesting alternative, and maybe I'll go
that route.  I understand 35 is near the same degree below real eye sight as
the 50 is above (slightly more, but why quibble?), so maybe that's a better
answer.  Any thoughts on any of this?
jimphotog - 04 Apr 2007 17:39 GMT
>> I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS
>> Elan IIe on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Rita
Thanks, Rita, and I don't think you exaggerate at all (re: following poster,
lol).  I also have read about the new version 16-35 and have hopes for that.
Actually, replies here and on other forums have me leaning away from f/2.8
toward f/4 glass.  Take a look if you care to at my reply to the immediately
preceding post.  Any comments?  Again, thanks for taking the time.
Dave - 03 Apr 2007 11:19 GMT
> I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS Elan IIe
> on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital P&S (Sony W-1),
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
> --
> Message posted via PhotoKB.comhttp://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/photo-digital-slr/200704/1

I started "trying" digital photography in 2001, and went seriously to
digital about a year later.  I had been using SLRs since early 80s,
and the "seriously to digital" stage was when I got a Canon D60.  Late
last year I bought a Canon 30D after selling the D60, and I've not
been disappointed.

All the lenses I own are Canon, but they are not the top-of-the-line
lenses that the company offers.  So, what I'm saying is that I really
don't know how good the camera is.  I.e., I haven't given it the
chance to show what it really can do.  I can see that when I take a
really good picture, it is amazing how good the picture is, especially
when I display it using proper software and monitor (not just cheap
laptop) and also have it printed to at least 5 in x 7 in.  I can only
imagine how good the 5D will be!

You need an effective 20-25 mm wide angle at least (in terms of 24 mm
x 36 mm sensor size standard) and at least 300 mm telephoto (adjusted
for same sensor size again).  If I went out and spent more $$ today,
I'd do it first on a better telephoto zoom - my current 75mm-300mm
just really isn't good enough in most situations.  The Canon "L" grade
of glass would give better contrast plus the IS feature.  To a certain
extent I can correct for contrast in my computer, but I cannot do much
for lack of IS except shoot the picture at a higher speed, which of
course has its own set of issues.

That's my two-cents' worth.
jimphotog - 04 Apr 2007 17:55 GMT
>> I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist.  I put my Canon EOS Elan IIe
>> on the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital P&S (Sony W-1),
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
>That's my two-cents' worth.
Thanks, Dave, your .02 is worth a lot.  If you don't mind, how about looking
at my response to Dizznoid a few posts above and see if that generates any
additional thoughts?  This and other forums have helped a lot, in both
supporting where I thought I'd go and pointing out short comings.  In the
Dizznoid reply, you'll see that I've adjusted my thinking.
Tom - 07 Apr 2007 09:15 GMT
>  plan to start with the 24-70 and 100 macro,
> and build from there, beginning with the 70-200.  

Sounds good to me but I'd skip the 100 macro and go right to the
70-200 f/2.8 IS after the normal range zoom.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.