~$2800.00 to spend on camera+lens

C

CJRP

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
491
What would you recommend?

I am new to photography, I have a freshly built workstation with Photoshop CS5 and am extremely eager to learn. I've already spent quite a bit of time studying techniques and terminology but it is time to actually take some photos. I know nothing will help me learn faster than that.

I was thinking of buying a Canon EOS 7D and an additional lens. I am not sure what lens to choose.

I will be using the camera to shoot a wide variety of things. Portraits, objects (in a room with controlled lighting as well as outside), landscape, macro, etc.

Any recommendations or good places to start? Should I start with a lesser camera? I definitely do not want to feel the need to upgrade a month later. My friends who are into photography have Canons as well and said I could borrow lenses.

So, what would you do?

Thanks!
 
With friends willing to rent you their Canon lenses, I recommend getting a Canon camera ;)

With that out of the way... there's a certain reasoning for getting a "lesser" camera with better lens (primarily because a good lens outlasts any camera body), but getting a nice set of glass is also very costly, and can take years to acquire all the little pieces. As you probably already know, this hobby isn't cheap, but $2800 is an excellent budget to play with. Certainly a lot bigger than most people usually start with.

The camera body choice will depend on the lenses (and quantity) you want to buy right away. If you only want to start with just a single lens, then the 7D will be an excellent choice. Otherwise, a 60D or 3ti will work just as well. I'm not that familiar with the Canon side, so perhaps other [H] members can pin point a better option here. Also, ask your friends, and see what they have to say.

The lenses? Here's where you can take advantage of your friends ;) See what lenses they have, and work with that. If they have a macro lens, don't buy one right away. Get one from a friend, test it out, see how you like it, and go from there. Likewise with landscapes. If they have, say a Sigma 10-20 or similar UWA lens, don't buy one just yet. Build your camera setup around what's available to you, and try to fill the gaps. No, you shouldn't completely depend on them, hence you should get at least one general purpose lens and maybe a prime of some sort, but you're in a very comfortable situation. So again, take advantage of that. ;)

If it were me, I'd probably go with a 7D or 60D (depending if I wanted to spend all my money or not) with 18-135mm (or similar) to boot, and go from there. Save some extra money, experiment with your friends, see what type of photography really appeals to you, and add lenses as you see fit.
 
Another thing to do is check out the Canon Loyalty Program. I got my 50D from there not too long ago, picked up (used) Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 USM and a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro lens with some other bits here and there. Ended up spending about 2k total
 
Yeah I would get a 5d mark II from Canon's Loyalty Program.... or buy a used 5D.... There is something about a full frame camera..... well unless you are shooting wildlife or sports or action... but portraits, cityscapes and landscapes I would choose a FF over a crop.... so a 24mm lens is actually a 24mm lens.... but if you go the crop route then a 7D is the way to go... lots of people on the canon forum have both or had one and got the other and mostly everyone ended up with a FF camera :)

This is just my opinion...
 
darktiger said:
.... There is something about a full frame camera.....
Click to expand...

This is very true. There is just something about the images they make. I look at it two different ways. If you are going to get a crop sensor (assuming you are not going to shoot sports) get great lenses and spend less on the body. On the other hand, just get a full frame and be done with it. ;)
 
I really appreciate the input everyone.

That is the decision that has been tormenting me and the reason I still do not have a camera in my hands. I've really been torn between crop versus full frame. I would love to have the 5D Mark II but then I would not have the money for a lens.

Would I save a lot using the loyalty program? I will have to research that.

Normally I would say the best idea would be to save for awhile longer and go with the more expensive 5D Mark II, however, I have a number of trips lined up over the next three months that I want to photograph and would prefer to have the camera for that.

If there was some way to get the 5D Mark II along with that 100mm f/2.8 L Canon lens for under $3000.00 I would be all over it.
 
I have seen used 5d mark II go for pretty low. I also remember that the 5d mark II was on the loyalty program (but not sure if it is still on there or if they are in stock). People were getting pretty cheap.

Everything you listed points to a FF. I have had both (mostly crops), but once I got a FF, everything changed... it was magical :)
 
Ah screw it...I just ordered the 5D Mark II :D


So, what lens should I pursue first? I think I will start with a general purpose one? I was thinking Canon L lens? Which do you guys think is the most versatile, say, for portraits and some landscapes plus a few shots of objects in different lighting situations? Is there one you would recommend that can sort of cover those bases? For some reason I am very attracted to the wide angle lenses. Anything in the $1000 - 1500 range for a nice lens to start with? I will probably not purchase another lens until I am done traveling over the summer, four months from now, so this will need to satisfy a diverse array of shots.

Again, thanks so much for the advice, I kind of knew I wanted the 5Dii but I was trying to get away with spending less. Really appreciate your expert knowledge.
 
congrats on the purchase. and welcome to the "expensive lens" cathegory :) good luck and many happy photos! ;)
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Thanks!

I'm excited for it to arrive, I should have it by this weekend if all goes according to plan.
 
lol, hardforum has a funny effect on budgets, doesn't it? congrats on the 5d2, amazing camera.

There are plenty of people here with tons more experience than I, but if it were me - I would start with a 24-70L, and maybe a 70-300 usm is for the long end, you could probably squeeze the two into your $1500 budget if you go used, might be a little tight. Then I'd go 16-35L to cover the ultra wide end down the road. But it depends on what you're shooting, the 24-105L IS, is a stop slower, but the increase in range might be really handy if you're looking at carrying only one lens for a while, just won't be much good in low light, it's a bit cheaper too.
 
What do you guys think of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L macro lens? Maybe I'll just nab that and the 24-70L. Good decision or would I be better served by the 24-70L and 16-35L? I want to do some macro work but I should probably pick that up after traveling.
 
Excellent choice! 5DmkII is a good body. 24-70L is able to macro focus, but I'm not sure how well the photos are, compared to the 100L macro. Look around.

With the 24-70L and the 24-105L, both lenses do show distortion, but the 24-105L is the worse of the two. The 24-70L is sharper than the 24-105L, but the 24-105L has IS.
Pick the 24-70L.

Down the road, one of the 70-200L lenses, f/4 IS or the more expensive, but worth it f/2.8 II IS, the 24-70L and the 70-200L would be a great combo.

One day, if Canon can create a 14-24mm f/2.8 or f/4 lens, the 14-200mm range would be covered nicely with 3 zoom lenses.

You can always go with primes.
 
I have Nikon, but I do shoot all primes 90% of time. I have a 24mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.8, and 85 1.8. I also have a 70-210 f4. I was able to get all for ~$1200. Maybe you could do similar with Canon.
 
EngrChris said:
With the 24-70L and the 24-105L, both lenses do show distortion, but the 24-105L is the worse of the two. The 24-70L is sharper than the 24-105L, but the 24-105L has IS.
Pick the 24-70L.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is what they say, but my 24-105 has been sharper than my two copies of my 24-70. After calibration by canon I still give the nudge to my 24-105. Trust me if you follow the threads on POTN, there is a big percent of people who say the same thing.

That said, I have and use both lens. They both are great sharp and useful lenses. If I was shooting low light, weddings, clubs, concerts, etc then I grab the 24-70 or 85L. If I was shooting landscape, cityscape, outdoors (unless it's portraits), HDR, and on vacation and traveling then I grab the 24-105L. I have very steady hands, but I rarely can get a sharp image from my 24-70 at 1/6-1/15sec. But my 24-105 I can, also on moving vehicles like boats, I always grab my 24-105.

I love IS and find it very useful because sometimes the 2.8 while useful is not enough. That is where I find my primes. Also I sometimes find 70mm very limiting so I would have to swap to my 70-200L 2.8 IS.

If there was one lens I could grab or be stuck with it would be my 24-105 hands down.

So my recommendation is get a used 24-105L and a new or used 50mm f/1.4 (dont go with the popular and cheap 50mm 1.8, they are very fragile, plus the 1.4 is very nice).

Congrats on your purchase.
 
Also the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L macro lens is a good lens for macro work. When I had the regular Canon 100mm, wind, hand shake, etc would ruin some of my images.

Another option with the 24-105L is you can get extension tubes. So you have the IS of the 24-105 and it can do macro more than the 100mm. But lots of people use a 100mm with a reverse ring with a 50mm and get some crazy cool macro images.
 
I'll report back soon with what I purchased and I'm hoping to post some test shots soon.

As I do not have the camera yet and am new to anything besides point and shoot, I have a hard time imaging what will be possible with each lens.

For instance, I know I could use the 100mm f/2.8 L macro lens for portraits occasionally. I just don't understand the relationship yet between focal length and how that translates into exactly what range I am capable of capturing in good focus. This in turn makes it hard to buy a lens.

I know I am going overboard purchasing a 5Dii as my first real camera when I'm still so new to photography in general but at least this should last me some time.

It seems overall that many recommend the 24-105 L as a good general purpose lens. I am just worried that I will not be able to get the cool architecture shots like a wide angle lens could. Will I be able to capture any of that feeling/imagery with the 24-105 l? And with the 100mm f/2.8 macro, just how far back will I be able to focus? If I can capture a portrait with it, could I not also capture something further back?
 
24-105 F4 is a good all around lens for the 5D. It's good for just about everything.

For full frame, most people seem to agree 85 to 135 is the best focal lengths for portraiture. People pick one or the other end of the spectrum based upon subject size and framing perspective. In a pinch a 24-105 works ok if you know when and where to use it.

If your considering the wide angle aspect and moving up from a point and shoot, most point and shoots only go as wide as 24mm equivalent which is what that lens provides. My widest point and shoot actually was 29mm so moving to 24mm took some time to adjust and most of my wide angle shots really don't look impressive at all. Even today, I still find it hard to frame wide angle shots well.
 
darktiger said:
Yeah that is what they say, but my 24-105 has been sharper than my two copies of my 24-70. After calibration by canon I still give the nudge to my 24-105. Trust me if you follow the threads on POTN, there is a big percent of people who say the same thing.
Click to expand...
I'm a Nikon guy, but I've seen this happen myself. Three of my friends, each with the 24-70 have either traded it in after some time, or just sold it and never really looked back. There's something about this lens that just isn't up to the L standards. I could be wrong, though.

FWIW, I suggest going with the 24-105, too. The extra stop from the 24-70 might be useful in some situations, but with IS and a solid ISO performance from 5DMkII you should be able to get away with a lot of things. 24mm on full frame is wide enough for some landscape/urban photography. Sure, anything wider is sometimes better, but wider usually means more distortion, and sometimes dealing with it, just isn't worth it. Again, going back to your friends with lenses. See what they have, try it, see how you like it.

Later on, just add a prime or two (the already mentioned 85mm or 135mm) and you should be set.

Also, since I have some spare time, let me infest your mind with additional ideas on how to spend you next hundreds of thousands of dollars :D

1. But this book. It's a $15 well spend. Read it once, then read it again. Practice and learn as you go.
2. Camera and lens are one thing, but a software to edit the photos might come in handy, don't you think? :p
CaptureOne - try it out for free for 30 days. Honestly, if you can digest this thing, and understand it, it's wonderful. I gave up on it after about 3 days with frustration, but hey... you might like it :D
Lightroom - this is what I use, and I do like the results I'm getting out of it. It's a bit cheaper, and I'm thinking more popular among the [H] community as well, so should you run into some problems, you should be able to find at least one or two people here to guide you.

Both are great and you can get a lot of millage out of them. However, they work even better when being complemented by Photoshop.

:cool:

I'm bored tonight. If you have more questions, just shoot :p
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I think 24 is very wide especially on a FF camera. I also have the popular 17-40 but I still tend to use my 24-105 and if I want super wide I will just stitch the images together... Like this shot I took 2 weeks ago


Hong Kong by darktiger, on Flickr
 
So I have the 5D2 body now. Lenses were out of stock at my local store so I ordered and am waiting until next week to pick them up.

So far I have on order:

100mm 2.8L Macro
Sandisk Extreme 16 GB 60mb/s card
Lowpro Slingshot 200 bag
Rocket blower
Canon Grip
Extra battery
B&W UV filters (really necessary? Just using for protection)

And I want to buy:

Something wider but not too pricey (maybe 17-40 L?)
Canon 50mm 1.4

I should probably just skip the ultra wide lens for now until I can afford a wide angle prime. Just want to have one for traveling. Maybe I will need to rent for now.
 
^Congrats.

UV Filter? - No. But the opinion is split on this one. Personally, I don't use any protective filters because... well, why invest in high quality glass if you gonna attach some random piece of glass in front of it? And depending on the lightning situation, it can do more harm than good.

Definitely buy another lens. Not that the lens you got is bad, but being restricted to that particular lens will suck. You should get that 50mm asap.

Good luck, have fun with the gear, and post some results when you get a chance!
 
congrats... if I could only have one prime it would be the 35L f/1.4 ;)
 
northrop said:
^Congrats.

UV Filter? - No. But the opinion is split on this one. Personally, I don't use any protective filters because... well, why invest in high quality glass if you gonna attach some random piece of glass in front of it? And depending on the lightning situation, it can do more harm than good.
Click to expand...

I use a UV filter to protect the lens if it's windy out (dust getting in the lens, sandblasting the lens), but I also live in the desert. (B&W 77mm.)
 
Just placed an order for the Canon 17-40 L. I cannot resist the price and wide angle! I'll pick up that 50mm later and in the meantime I'll just back up really far to take portraits with my 100mm.

Question: Do I need/want a polarizer on my wide angle lens?
 
CJRP said:
Question: Do I need/want a polarizer on my wide angle lens?
Click to expand...

If you're doing landscapes with any sky or water, or taking pictures of anything with non-metallic reflective surfaces (like windows, car paint, etc.) then YES! Absolutely necessary!

You'll want a thin one to avoid vignetting though, which means more $$ unfortunately.
 
also gradient filters are what a lot of people use for landscapes...
 
A polarizer is also good for controlling the haze/intensity of skies. Plus you can also control those pesky rainbows (you can take them out completely, or adjust them to *OMGRAINBOW!*.)

I still need to pick up a gradient filter. I've been bracketing and photoshopping skies together.
 
Alright, ordered the B + W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Coated Glass Filter. Was hard to find info on a polarizer that will not show vignetting on a wide angle lens at wide aperture. I am hoping this does the trick otherwise, I'll just use it on another lens!
 
darktiger said:
congrats... if I could only have one prime it would be the 35L f/1.4 ;)
Click to expand...

ExplodingTaco said:
My 35mm is on my camera 85% of the time. At that lens is as good as they come.
Click to expand...

Are you guys using FF or crop cameras? I am currently using Canon T2i + 50mm 1.4. I am thinking about selling the 50mm and buying the 35mm.

I have a B + W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer. I use it with my kit lens (18-55), and it has made wonders for my photos. Could not have been happier with my purchase. I will most definitely buy another B+W Kaesemann when I buy a better lens. I am still deciding between 17-55 f2.8, 24-105 f4 and 24-70 f2.8. I have only had the opportunity to try out the 24-105 f4, but not with my own camera. However, according to Canonrumours, the mk2 of 24-70 f2.8 should be coming "soon". What to do, what to do, what to do.....
 
Last edited:
I am on FF a Nikon D700, and based on what I have seen it appears darktiger uses FF as well, a 5D MKII. To get the same look on your camera you would need a 24mm lens.

I shoot only Prime lenses but if I did get a zoom I would prob get the 24-70.
 
Yeah I shoot FF, a 5D MKII and 5D. Sold off all my crop camera's a while back, love FF.

I think 24mm is a good balance on usability and wideness. When I shoot only landscapes then I would use my 17-40... on a FF it's all that... polarizers and ND filters are useful especially if you want to control exposure and shutter speed... I have one of those variable ND filters for that... polarizers are useful if I am trying to cut out reflections and hazy... but for landscapes I usually use my cokin P holder with some lee filters... the holder allows me to stack my different filters together... I am beginning to use my nd filters for shooting models in bright daylight with my alienbees and soon to be bought elinchroms :)
 
Finally got everything and was able to take a few test shots. It was 9:00 p.m. and very low light, so naturally I had the ISO higher than usual.

As I anxiously loaded my test shots to my computer, I was greeted by a glaring stuck red pixel in the same location on every shot! Much worse on the JPEGs than RAW. I'm assuming the compression on the JPEGS turned the one stuck pixel into what looks like a group, as at 100% crop, the area occupies more than one pixel.

I started reading and see that some people achieve success by using the "Manual Sensor Cleaning" function on the 5DII for a minute which supposedly remaps the stuck pixel to show as the same color as the surrounding pixels. This apparently does not work for video.

I'm slightly conflicted, I am within the 14 day return policy on my camera and could just ask for a new one. I do not want to hastely do that if I may avoid it of course.

Any thoughts?

On an equally poor note, there is a spec of dust showing my view finder already. I've only changed the lens maybe three times in a very clean environment. I've tried gently using my Rocket Blower to pass a small breeze into the open camera body but no luck. How annoying.
 
I've done the manual sensor cleaning trick multiple times and it works great. Take a photo with the cap on, do the manual sensor cleaning (leave the cap on, lift the mirror for 30 seconds, power off the camera), and then take another photo with the cap on. This way you can see if there's any improvement.

My sensor has never been perfect, but the two pixels (one green, one red) have never come out in any of my prints. The Canon RAW converter software even takes them out right when you open them (as does Photoshop.)
 
Personally, I'd exchange it. Its something that would bother me and be in the back of my mind every time I took a shot.
 
Excellent, thanks for your thoughts.

So from what I am reading, the stuck pixel will always show in video even if I use the Manual Sensor Cleaning trick, that I would not be very happy about.



Someone on another forum described what I am seeing too:


"This is my understanding on the matter (red pixels). When you zoom into these red pixels, it actually looks like more than one pixel is affected but really it is one, but the adjacent pixels are affected by the image interpolation (bayer interpolation?)

All Sensors come off the production line with these defective pixels (note these are different from hot pixels, these are stuck pixels that have malfunctioned). During the production process, the sensors are mapped/calibrated. To ship Cameras with "perfect" Sensors without the need for a software map would be too costly I'd imagine

During subsequent use, if new defective pixels show up, the Sensor needs to be recalibrated (remapped) to correct for the defective pixels and Canon can do this under warranty. Note I'm talking about red pixels that actually look like approx 6-8 pixels in a cluster "
 
In case anyone cares to know, I tried the sensor cleaning trick and everything is perfect now. I see no stuck or dead pixels in stills or video.

Ok, signing off my blog now until I can actually post some pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top