Best startup 5D setup?

[david_e._starr1]

I think the 24mm on the 24-70 is really all I need as far as wide goes. The 24-105 and 17-40 is just too slow for me. I do a LOT of available light shooting. But my telephoto is mostly going to be used for daytime outdoor shots, so slow isn't a big worry. Plenty of sunlight to go around when I'd use it.

 

But I got carried away with thinking about the 70-200 f4 IS. Because that is really close to the price of the 100-400, which I decided I couldn't afford yet. So... I think I'm back to the 70-300 IS non-DO for now.

 

This first setup is turning out to really just be the beginning of an upgrade path. I'll eventually sell my 5D for the Mark II, and I'll eventually sell the 70-300 for the 100-400. Maybe sell a film camera for the 70-200 2.8 non-IS.

 

And last night I realized I completely forgot about the money I have to spend on a macro lens, too. I'm just going to use the one I planned on using with my 40D, the Sigma 150mm 2.8. Now THAT's a versatile lens! Telephoto action portrait macro!

[david_wu6]

"It's a crime for not getting 24-105 for 5D", someone said in this forum.

 

It's even more so for you, since you will get the 100-400.

 

So get the 5D kit for $2760 and use the rest to buy some oil related options. Soon you will be able to get the 100-400.

 

BTW Since you have a 50mm Summircron, why do you need another 50mm?

[david_e._starr1]

Well, as I said earlier, the 24-105 isn't fast enough for me. I feel the lens is pretty overrated. I think it's one of those things like the 28-135 IS where the lens just wouldn't sell by itself, so they need to package it with a camera.

 

And as I also said earlier, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is only a couple hundred bucks, so the USM is worth it to me. When I'm taking some more creative or important shots, I'll use the Summicron, but for just candid available-light use, the snappy autofocus definitely worth the $250 I have to pay for it.

 

Most of my work is just social candids. That's about 70% of the pictures I take. That's where the Canon 50 comes in. The other 30% (the ones that make it out to the public), are where I took my time to compose the shot instead of just capturing a moment. That's where the Summicron will come in handy.

[correct_exposure]

16-35 + 50 prime + 70-300

 

Pass on the 24-70 because the 16-35 is a better low light zoom and you can take pics of people without pointing the camera at them. Also, the 50 prime is awesome on the 5D and makes the 24-70 somewhat redundant.

 

My kit: 5D + 15 fisheye + 50 1.4 + 70-300 DO + DxO Optics Pro Software

 

I de-fish the fisheye to 12mm perfectly and the 50 + DO lenses are corrected with DxO beautifully. And the last time I checked, Canon does not make a full frame 12mm lens.

[david_e._starr1]

But the 16-35 isn't a very good walkaround. It has a very wide field of view, but its range stops very early. If I were to do the 16-35 and the 50 and the 70-300, I'd find myself changing lenses very often, which is a cumbersome activity in and of itself, let alone having to carry all three lenses everywhere. With the 24-70, I would probably end up keeping that on most of the time, and end up switching to the 50 once I go inside for a long period of time. And the telephoto is purely for outdoor, far-away nature. So on shoots when I use that, it's all I'd use.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

Not sure I get the dislike of the 24-105.

 

1) if you're getting the 50 1.4 anyway, that would give you good low light capacity in the middle of that range.

 

2) f/4 with 1600 ISO, and IS will let you shoot in pretty low light

 

3) if you don't like the quality of the 24-105L, I can't imagine you'll be satisfied with the 70/300

 

4) even if you might think the 24-105 is overrated, and not worth the price, if you get $400 off the price, it's tough to find something better in that range for $600.

 

My 2 cents.

[david_e._starr1]

1) Right, but it'd be nice to have at least some capability on another lens if I don't have time to change.

 

2) I'd like to stay at the lowest ISO possible, even though the noise is very reasonable on the 5D.

 

3) Heh. You're right. I won't be satisfied with the 70-300, but for the price I can get it at, the price to performance ratio is through the roof.

 

4) It's just the depth of field at f4 is so underwhelming. For a portrait/walkaround lens, I would love to get shallow depths of field without having to muck around with my focusing distance. The 24-70 at 2.8 will do that for me.

[correct_exposure]

The 24-70 is a great lens and you surely can't go wrong with it. But it is larger and heavier than the 50 prime, 2 stops slower and you can easily use your feet to make up any differences. The 24-70 is great for weddings and other paid events, but not 800 better for unpaid walking around pics.

 

I think you missed the point of not pointing the lens at people even though they are the subject. It can be very dramatic.

 

Bob brings up a good point as well. However, only you can decide, and you have great lenses to choose from. It's always something when I see cheap glass on a 5D. It's like putting cheap tires on a Corvette. :)

[david_e._starr1]

Well, I can get the 5D and 24-105 for $2500, or I can get the 5D and 24-70 for $2800 (god bless employee discounts). So... it's only a $300 difference instead of a retail $800 difference.

 

And yeah, I do know that you don't have to aim at people to make them the subject. A couple steps back at 24mm would be more than wide enough.

 

And I was thinking about dabbling in paid wedding photography after getting my setup here, too. One gig would probably earn me back all the money I spend on this.

 

And yeah, it is a little depressing to see someone with a 5D using something like an 18-55. Like wagon wheels on a Porsche. But... I kinda have been toying with the idea of buying a 50mm 1.8, just for some shots with massive vignetting. Occasionally that horrible combination can produce interesting shots. Hence the Lomo appeal.

[photo_dark]

honestly.... 24-70L f2.8 would be my only recommendation.

 

But i'm not a full-frame shooter.

 

It's still my only recommendation. Great piece of glass...very versatile.

[photo_dark]

also... EF-S lenses don't work on full frame cameras. So your comment about 18-55 on a 5D isn't valid... it wouldn't even go on the camera :)

 

Shoulda been "like driving a porche with no wheels" hehe

[david_e._starr1]

lol Well, you could put the lens on there. I don't know if the camera would reject it in manual mode. But uh... it'd certainly break the camera. Which is indeed sad.

[brossart]

While I can't comment on the 70-300 on a 5D, I can tell you I shot it on a Rebel and a 40D for about a year. Great lens, but it ended up being a tad slow for me. I upgraded to the 70-200/2.8. While I miss my money, I love the lens. If you're interested, I have the 70-300 for sale with the hood. It's in great condition, but honestly, from the sound of this thread, I don't think you'd be satisfied.

[frameofmindphotography]

I think you may be looking at this the wrong way. Sounds to me like you need a moderately priced setup with great performance and features that give you total control over your shots. The 5D is a great camera, yet it is pricey for the outdated camera it is. I would not buy that camera with a successor not far down the line. The 40D gives you great features and performance at half the cost. For 1500 you get the body and the 28-135 IS lens, which has a pretty good focal length considering the 1.6x crop factor. I also purchase the 20mm f2.8 ultra-wide angle fixed lens, which I LOVE! I bought the 50mm lens because I wanted an extremely shallow depth of field, although I do not use this as much as the wide angle lens. I'm sitting at about 2300 with three compact flash card, extra batteries, etc. This is a great set up for me. I have yet to say, "I wish I had a lens that would...." Just my opinion. Again, I wouldn't by the 5D because better technology is around the corner. And when it does come out, the 40D is going to make a Great backup body.

[mendel_leisk]

I almost always choose my 24-70 over my 24-105. Each has it's good points, but for me the '70 is *the* choice about 90% of the time.

[BruceSturm]

I purchased a 5D last year, along with the ef 50 1.4 lens. I'm getting terrific results shooting! I'm happy with my purchase. If I had only one chance to purchase a lens I would have opted for the 24-70 2.8. It's a versatile lens. I probably would not change out the lens for the 50. I shoot a lot of street scapes so I believe it's the perfect walk about lens for my style of shooting...This is my next lens purchase. As telephotos go I would seriously consider purchasing the 70-200 2.8. You'll need to get a very sturdy tri-pod to support this setup. Good luck deciding!

[david_e._starr1]

@Michael Brossart<br>Yeah, I know the 70-300 IS wouldn't be the best lens to do the job. But for the $450 the lens would cost me, it seemingly the perfect lens to temporarily do the job until I can afford a better one. The resolution on the lens is surprisingly high. The color may not be the world's best, but on a 5D, it's already got an advantage over most, and there's always Photoshop to tweak the colors just a little bit more.<br><br>The way I see it: It's incredibly sharp and incredibly inexpensive. What else matters?<br><br><br>@Aaron Davis<br>I was considering the 40D, as I stated earlier, but... something was so unappealing. First off, I really just dislike the 28-135 IS lens. It's too soft and slow. But the sad part is there's no real substitute that's any better. The 24-105L on a cropped sensor is really kind of pointless. The 17-85 is WAY too distorted at the wide end for me to be happy with. And... just most of the L glass is underwhelmed when put on the 40D. And when comparing the color between the two, the 40D's color was vibrant and punchy, but the color on the 5D was just sublime. So much more subtle and rich. The color, the IQ, and definitely the full frame sensor has got me convinced I want the 5D instead.<br><br>Plus, because of the cropped sensor, I'd need to get an ultra-wide lens just to get a moderately wide angle. Ultra-wides are always so much softer, slower, and lower in contrast. Not to mention more expensive. There's just really so few lenses that mate well with a 40D that would leave me satisfied.<br><br>I figure I'll start out with the 5D. The thing that draws me most to the 40D is the 6fps, and the 5D Mark II is rumored to have it, as well, but I'm not yet sure that I'll need it. 3fps just may be enough for me. And really, the speed is my only complaint about the camera. It may be older technology, but it's been proven to be excellent technology that still trumps most DSLRs. I'd rather wait a few months with the Mark II on the market to see if it is as good or better. If it is, I'll sell or trade in the 5D for the upgrade. And if 3fps turns out to not be enough for me, I'll just upgrade as soon as the Mark II hits the market. My problem is that I'll probably have a lot of other people doing the same thing to compete with.<br><br><br>@Bruce Sturm<br>

Yeah, I've been wanting the 70-200 2.8 non-IS for a long, long time now. I don't know what all the fanfare is about the stabilized version. It's so much softer than its non-stabilized brethren.

[brossart]

Sounds like your tele lens will be secondary to what you want to do. If I'm right, my advice would be hold off. Shoot your other lenses. When you have the money, buy the tele/tele-zoom you really want. You may even find you've changed your mind on your tele needs when the time comes.

[lindsay_dobson]

David, the 5D sounds like the only option for you, and you won't regret it. I don't think its successor will be available this year, so I would take that out of the equasion.

 

The 24-105 is a very versatile lens. Despite loving my 50mm, I need the 24-105 because it covers so many situations. And then there was a need for a longer lens ...

 

Yesterday I had a great deal of help with the 'long lens dilemma'. If you get a chance to read the thread, you'll see the 70-300 IS non-DO is the clear winner. It really is rated very highly, and the quality is good throughout the range. Even though I could afford something a little more costly, this is the one I chose. I'm just concerned the 70-200 might not give you the reach you want.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PLHs

[juliehodgins]

David, I have the 5D and also the 24-70. I LOVE that lens just for a walk around lens. Also

instead of the 16-35, try the 17-40 for wide angle. Its much cheaper and pretty much the

same focal length. its just f4 instead of 2.8. Also I own the 70-200 but I find its not enough

length for me at all. I would hold off and save up for the 100-400, thats what I am doing

right now.

[erikadams]

I shoot film still on my Canon EOS 3. I have the 70-300 IS non-DO, and I appreciate it for its smaller size, but my go-to lens has become my 70-200 2.8L, paired with 1.4x and 2x extenders. With its IS, I can be at f5.6 using the 2x extender and easily hand hold. The red wattle bird photo in my portfolio was taken with those parameters. That lens is noticeably sharper than the 70-300, but of course sharpness depends also on contrast within the photo. The only downsides to the 70-200 2.8L are its size - it attracts too much attention, and its weight. I have a 135 2.0L prime that's sharp as a tack, black colored and small, and it's one of my favorite "people" lenses. I find myself changing lenses a lot, though, when I'm using this one. In the end, there's no perfect solution, only trade-offs. One thing that I've learned is that I seldom wish I had carried a lighter lens, but I sometimes wish I had carried a sharper lens.

[zambaras]

I have been using a number of Canon lenses on both 20D and 5D in the past few years. I believe that the EF2.8/24-70 and the EF2.8/70-200 are by far the best both in terms of usability and quality, hands down.

[andrew_solomon]

The 28-70 is a great all-over lens and I use it a lot with the companion 70-200-both f/2.8. MOst importantly, I use several of my Leica lenses on the 5d: 60mm Macro and 280 APO. They work just great.

 

As I do fine art traditional color landscape, the combination of outstanding optics and 12.4 megapixels. WHo could ask for more?

 

Andy

[david_e._starr1]

Also, I recently heard a complaint about the 5D that I never heard before.

 

Battery life? I heard I'd probably only average about 200-300 shots per charge?

 

That sounds very, very low to me...

Can anyone tell me anything about the battery life of their 5Ds?

 

If it is that bad, I may just skip the telephoto lens and buy the battery grip instead.

[thomas_sullivan]

re: 24-105 f/4.0...........I shoot a lot of available light also and I use the 24-105 on the 5D a lot. The IS really helps a whole lot. If I need the extra speed I always have my 50 f/1.4 and a 35mm f/2.0 with me. And during the light hours the 24-105 rarely comes off the cam

 

I never thought IS would be as helpful as it has been. If I was starting over ALL my zooms would be IS and I'd get a few primes for the speed in really low light. Why mess with f/2.8 on a zoom........it aint really that great in really low light at that max f stop anyhow. 2.0 and faster is the best...and that's primes only.