Best spent $3200

<p>I am upgrading from a canon G10 to a canon DLSR. I shoot mostly landscape and macro photography. I am having the toughest time deciding between the 5DM2 w/ 24-105 f4 L. or a T2i w/ 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS, and canon 10-22 super wide, and a 100-400 L zoom. Each choice is approx $3200. I would like to hear some pros or cons of each choice. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Howard</p>

 

<p>For IQ and handling go with the 5DII. A compromise might be the 7D with a lens like the 17-55 F2.8 or 17-40 F4 plus a lens like the 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 F4. For macro you will need a macro lens or extension tubes and a good prime. I personally am not a fan of the 100-400 as it is quite an old lens, rather slow and I do not like the push pull action - I wait for others to disagree.</p>

<p>Those are two quite different kits.</p>

<p>If you don't need the super-long focal-lengths, I'd go with the 5D.</p>

<p>I use the 5D2 with 2 lenses, 95% of the time. An 85mm f 1.2, a great lens, and a Zeiss 50mm macro. With occasional use of a wide lens, they are all I usually need.</p>

<p>I think you need to ask yourself a few things:</p>

<ol>

<li>What are you going to do with your photographs? Make big prints? Share in Flickr? Something else?</li>

<li>Do you have to buy your complete and final photographic setup right now using the $3200? Or are you starting with this and considering that you'll augment later?</li>

<li>Do you have the spend the whole $3200 at once? Since you are up in the air, maybe getting the T2i and kit lens to start would let you shoot a bunch and develop experience that will help you understand your needs better... and make smarter decisions when (and if?) you make future purchases.</li>

</ol>

<p>Generally, when I see someone going back and forth between such radical options my reaction is: Don't buy now!</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I'll be the first to disagree with Philip :) I love my 100-400mm, I think it's the best zoom lens out there for that range. Indeed, the IS is a bit outdated, but it does the job. At first I also hated the push-pull, but I came to appreciate it.</p>

<p>To give you my 2 cents, I would get a setup like this:</p>

<ul>

<li>50D body </li>

<li>Canon 10-22mm</li>

<li>Tamron 28-70mm F2.8</li>

<li>Canon 60mm F2.8 macro </li>

<li>Canon 100-400mm</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll be the first to support Philip, then, by saying that the EF 100-400 is a superzoom, and, like all superzooms, it entails significant compromises in IQ. I know that the lens has its supporters, and I'm not going to question their allegiance, but I can say that I sold mine...</p>

<p>For me, the ultimate walkabout kit is a 5D II with a 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/4 IS, and a couple of the longer telephoto L primes. After all, how often do I want to shoot <em>between, </em>say, 300mm and 400mm? Never.</p>

<p>I owned a rebel XSI for a week, before I had to return is due to a focusing problem. Although the photos were pretty good (even with the focusing problem) they were not as sharp as I would like. I am an amateur photographer, who is building a portfolio to eventually have a gallery show and to sell some photographs. I don't need to spend the money all at once unless my choice is the 5DM2.</p>

<p>I made my initial investment with the Xsi, 50mm 1.4 and a couple kit lens, I have since bought the 70-200mm 2.8IS, which I LOVE, but am REally wanting either the 7d or the 5dmkII, and wish now I could have invested in one of them right off the bat. Just more $$ of course.</p>

<p>The question is what kind of pictures are you getting right now with your G10? You know of course that it is hard to take a picture with a p&s where anything is out of focus. This isn't true with a DSLR. A very large percentage of the 'focusing problem' that people new to DSLR have is user confusion. You need to think about that and maybe work on getting some more skills. If it was me with the goal you have ( I have an XSi also a 5DM2 and a new T2i) I would probably buy a T2i body with a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC, the very excellent Canon 10-22mm and either the IS or non-Is version of the 70-200mm 4.0 L lens. Don't make any quick judgment re the focus and out of focus, sharp and not sharp of the T2i and these lenses until you understand how the focus works and depth of focus. Give the camera some time for you to learn about what it can do. The T2i is a great tool in good hands and the lenses I recommended will give you great images if you use them with skill and craft. Good luck!</p>

<p>Mark: my lens does not show <em>significant </em>IQ differences when compared to my other primes. Maybe you just had a bad copy.</p>

<p>About your last statement, I think that's the whole idea of having the 100-400mm: to be able to shoot in the whole range, and be able to zoom fast back and forth when needed. I'll give you an example (please see <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8996393-lg.jpg">link</a> which is pretty much a full frame, no crop, just resized). A friend next to me was using my 400mm prime. His shot looked a little bit better at the pixel level, but the bird had the wings clipped.</p>

<p>I got my first Digital Rebel in 2003. Since then I have had the 20D, 2x 30D, 2x 40D, 2x 5D,7D and 5D mark II. By far the best ones have been the full frames. The only reason I shoot the 7D now is for air shows. Yes it's fast but it still has issues with noise with blue sky, even at ISO 100. Now I'm not saying the camera is sub-standard but when the shot has to be good, I always go for the full frames. The files are so much cleaner. Will my clients know? I doubt it, but I do. I too have the 17-55 2.8 EF-s and it's welded on my 7D. But if I had a choice like you, I would get the 5D mark II with 24-105 IS L and would not look back. It's that good. Once you save up for a 70-20 2.8 IS, you will really see what full frame is all about. LOVE it. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>Last year I was facing the same situation and was deciding between the T1i vs 5DII. I went with the T1i and with the extra money I gradually added Sigma 30 1.4, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 70-200 4 IS, and finally the Canon 24-70 2.8. Over the last year, I learned a whole lot about photography, my preferred subjects and the equipment that I need and don't need. I did enough shooting that my T1i has been at the Canon Service Center all of April, initially with a broken shutter and now with a broken shutter button. When it comes back, I'll continue to shoot with it and in a year get the 5DII or 5DIII. <br>

Overall I realized that I learn with each picture that I take and shutter life for these cameras are rated to last 100k actuations and wear out over time(mine had a premature failure and was replaced under warranty). If you are at the beginning stage, I would get the entry level camera and build up your lens and lighting kit and upgrade the body later.</p>

<p>Coming from a G10, you might be wanting to learn and experiment with some lenses, and a cheaper body would let you do that... right up front by purchasing multiple lenses, not just the 1 with 5d2.<br /> For my purposes the choice is 5d2, and if i had the money i would want 1d4 which is $5000, but then all i could have would be 1 lens and that wouldn't be right.<br /> Coming from G10 you should first use a lesser body and have access to multiple lenses. Even though 5d2 would take "higher resolution pictures", you can come pretty close with a lesser body with cropped sensor. I don't know the body you write about, but if i was getting a cropped body I would want a 40d or something close to that.<br /> Some lenses cost not much and give you the ability to take great pictures [with some background on those lenses, that you learn about as you read through this forum], those would be $100 50mm f/1.8, $600 17-40mm f/4 and $600 70-200mm f/4.<br /> Lenses such as 18-55mm i would stay away from, because those who have them realize as they get better that those lenses are not as sharp as others are.<br /> It's a common [good] advice to start with lenses lineup and get whatever body the budget allows, so "more of a lens" with "less of a body", and that has its limitations because for example for moving objects like in sports you want a faster focusing body [with a faster focusing lens too though], but you would never use a 5d2 with a 18-55mm actually that's an EF-S lens anyway so you would get vignetting, don't use a cheapest kind of lens on an expensive body, because the weakest link is what determines the image quality -- and many times the weakest link is the photographer spending more money on equipment than research and practice, and that's where most improvement can be done.<br>

You can also rent lenses... and expensive lenses... either locally or through places like www.borrowlenses.com or lensrentals.com or rentglass.com, it's definately not cheap but sometimes you might get a chance to use something you might never buy because it's $1700 to buy or $50 to rent per week [or better yet $4000 to buy, $175 a week], but if you know exactly what you want that lens for and why, that $175 might be worth it. When I spent that $175, I must have spent 10hours using that lens over a period of that week, and my only limitation was the golden light hours of the day [morning and night]. Renting might not be the best option in the first month or months, but at some point it could be an attractive alternative.</p>

<p>Howard,<br>

I went from a Canon A590IS to an XSi. There was definitely a difference in out of focus (OOF) areas. But, as Gil pointed out, the point and shoot cameras have very little OOF area. It is an adjustment I had to make to the new camera. This is, in part, due to the size of the sensor and, in part, due to the aperture of the lens. So, going to a 5DII will be moving to an even larger sensor and, if I understand correctly, the depth of field will be even smaller and the OOF areas more pronounced. If I have explained that incorrectly, I hope someone will explain it correctly.<br>

The T2i has the same size sensor as the XSi. So, it may give you results similar to those you had with your XSi if the focus issue was a function of sensor size and not camera malfunction.<br>

The advice given by several folks here that I find to be sound advice is to get the T2i or maybe a 40D and pair those with the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS and learn everything you can about the camera, the lenses and photography with a DSLR. There are people, many of them outside the US, who use these basic lenses and actually make money with their photography. I have a friend here in Brazil who makes his living with a 30D and 17-85IS. The key is that he knows his gear and uses it to its maximum capabilities.<br>

And, you can keep the G10 for macro if you need more than the 1:3.3 that these two kit lenses provide.<br>

So, for under $1,000 you can get what you need to start. You'll be able to decide what focal ranges you prefer for later lens puchases in the 18-250 crop range or the (roughly) 28-400 FF equivalent range. Then, you'll know what to do with the other $2200 and if you want to go FF then, you can sell the crop gear and buy FF.<br>

I hope this helps with your decision.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>I won't be the first... ;-)</p>

<p>... but the negative comments about the 100-400 often surprise me, in several ways.</p>

<p>First, some just think it isn't a fine lens or that it cannot produce very sharp photographs. This just isn't the case - I have one and rely on it a lot, and used correctly it most certainly can produce fine image quality.</p>

<p>Second, some of the criticisms suggest not only that it isn't the very sharpest lens at 400mm (about which we could have a reasonable discussion) but that it is really a poor lens. This notion, I think, comes from a couple sources. One is that some engage in more than a bit of hyperbole when contrasting IQ from different lenses. While it is true that you could see a very slight "betterness" in, say, a perfect shot from a 400mm prime and a perfect shot at 400mm from this zoom <em>if you compare side by side at 100% magnification on your screen</em>, both lenses can produce excellent quality in real photographs. Then some may just be repeating what they believe to be true: "zoom bad. prime good."</p>

<p>Third, I'm convinced that most (though perhaps not all) of the "push-pull bad" comments are from folks who either <em>imagine that they would not like if they were to try it</em> or from those who might have tried it only briefly. When I got mine I worried that the mechanism might be bothersome, but after using it I have to tell you that I never even think about it while shooting. Someone pointed out that the push pull mechanism actually makes a ton of sense for a long lens like this one, in that as the supporting hand moves back and forth it maintains a good position for supporting the changing center of balance of the lens.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Note that I'm not necessarily saying that this is the right lens for this poster - I made a comment on that general issue above.)</p>

<p>Dan - I am not a fan of the lens for two reasons - mainly because it is rather slow (yes I know it is the same as the 400 F5.6) and i do not own a lens slower than F4. The second reason is the push pull mechanism - I have personally never been a fan of this approach and the only lens of this type I still own is the FD 80-200 F4L. The final point I have is that the AF on this lens seems rather slow when compared to a 70-200 or the 300 f4 IS. As i stated this is a personal opinion and I expected others to disagree. From what I have seen when it is stopped down to F8 - F11 the IQ is good.</p>

<p>As in most cases, I think that posting some of your images that you shot with the G10 might give people a slightly better idea of what to recommend.</p>

<p>Howard,<br>

In response to the original post - where you state that you do mostly landscape and macro photography - I would suggest you look at a used 5D or a 50D (I've had both as well as a 5DII, 7D, and 40D). A used 5D in excellent condition is a great bargain right now and used or new 50D's are likewise available cheaply. With the 5D I'd pick up a 24-105mm lens plus a macro to start with - a Canon 100mm or a Tamron 90mm. With the 50D I'd pick up a 15-85mm and one of the above macro lenses or a 60mm macro. Use either set-up for awhile to hone your craft, then see what other lenses you'd like to add on later.</p>

<p>As to the 100-400mm lens debate, I personally agree with Diana and Dan... It is one of the few lenses that actually prompted me to move to Canon gear from Nikon a number of years ago. There is certainly some IQ variability in different copies - I started with a decent copy then found a very sharp copy that was suprisingly better than the first - but the convenience and capacity of the lens have been invaluable for me. (I don't think I would initially recommend it for your stated photo interests, though.)</p>

<p>Howard,<br>

In response to the original post - where you state that you do mostly landscape and macro photography - I would suggest you look at a used 5D or a 50D (I've had both as well as a 5DII, 7D, and 40D). A used 5D in excellent condition is a great bargain right now and used or new 50D's are likewise available cheaply. With the 5D I'd pick up a 24-105mm lens plus a macro to start with - a Canon 100mm or a Tamron 90mm. With the 50D I'd pick up a 15-85mm and one of the above macro lenses or a 60mm macro. Use either set-up for awhile to hone your craft, then see what other lenses you'd like to add on later.</p>

<p>As to the 100-400mm lens debate, I personally agree with Diana and Dan... It is one of the few lenses that actually prompted me to move to Canon gear from Nikon a number of years ago. There is certainly some IQ variability in different copies - I started with a decent copy then found a very sharp copy that was suprisingly better than the first - but the convenience and capacity of the lens have been invaluable for me. (I don't think I would initially recommend it for your stated photo interests, though.)</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the advice so far. Even though this is my first real trip into DSLR, I have been a Canon shooter since 1983, with my AE-1, which still takes great photos. I have used several Canon p&s's along the way. ( couldn't afford much more at the time.) I feel like a full frame camera is better for my artwork especially because I love to crop. The big question is the benefit of the full frame off set by the lack of range of glass.</p><div></div>

<p>One more</p><div></div>

<p>Persons sometimes recommend starting at the cheaper end and working up. I can see the logic of that, but, if one is going to keep buying on up as time goes by, I would buy the best that I could up front--and then add lenses as I could afford them. That would actually be cheaper over the long run.</p>

<p>For me, between the choices given, that would be the 5D II--but it really depends on the expected use of the camera.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Howard,<br>

Why do you need long range glass if you are shooting mostly landscapes and macros? For the most part, long lenses such as the 100-400 (which I own) come into play largely for sports and wildlife. I agree with many of the other commentors that you should choose the better lenses first then select a body you can afford. Buying an DSLR with one lens defeats a major purpose of an SLR: to choose between multiple lenses for your unique subject. With one lens you are limited. For that reason, I would not select the 5D MII with the 24 -105 lens. They are a great combination, but you will find yourself wishing you had more variety, and by the time you can afford another lens, your camera body will already be obsolete (well,... second generation anyway). Besides, you will lost valuable time gaining experience with a range of lenses. <br>

Here is the way I would go with it: <br>

Canon 50D $1100 (nice body, that will serve you well for a couple of years)<br>

EF 28-135 F3.5-5.6 $410 (An ok walkaround lens, that fills the middle range, (I would recommend the 24-105 f4, but it would push you over the $ top - the 24-105 would have the added benefit of transisitioning well to a 5D model in the future). <br>

EF-S 10-22 F3.5-4.5 $699 (great wide landscape lens) - This lens is a great value. <br>

EF 70-200 F4 $639 (Real solid long lens. Forget IS, use a mono or tripod if necessary)<br>

Save your money for a month or two and buy a EF 100mm 2.8 Macro. $530. <br>

After you have mastered your skills, saved some more money and hunger for something else, upgrade to the latest 5D model and trade in your EF-S lens for a super wide like the 16-35 or 17-40, then later upgrade your long lens to a 70-200 2.8 IS, or that 100-400 if length is still important to you. <br>

Another comment about the 100-400 lens. This is a very good lens but not a lens to use in low light. Since I shoot primarly at the 400 range, I am often at 5.6 which causes the AF to go on the hunt, in low light. <br>

To save $$$ I started out with new equipment, but am quite happy now to purchase lenses used through Craigslist or someone I trust. I have never been burned (good lenses, if well maintained generally last a very long time). </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Pick the focal length(s) you use most. See if you can find a really good lens for it either with full frame or crop sensor. Then base your choice on that.<br>

For example, something like a 85 TS lens would be great for both landscape and macro. Then the key question is do you want it to be a short tele or medium tele. With the latest bodies with high pixel counts, you really need good lenses to get the best results.</p>