Circular logic when considering new dSLRs?

[xingyuan_wang]

[To the mods reviewing this: I'm new to Photo.net, having stumbled on to it recently, but I'm not too sure

exactly where to put this... I wanted to put it in Nature, but it seems like it's more general than that. If you

think it'd fit there, I'll repost there.]

 

I'm just getting into the world of photography with dSLRs. I've been taking pictures somewhat heavily with a

Canon S3 IS, so there is some notion of brand loyalty. Most of my photography will likely be nature-related.

Looking at the pictures I've taken so far, the majority lie between 35-80 (on my S3), so I'm thinking that going

with a zoom that starts at 17 mm wide is fair, but I do have some above 90 mm that would require a telephoto.

When the XSi came out, I was convinced that it, the 17-40 L, and the 70-200 L f4 IS would be appropriate for me.

At the time, I didn't have the finances to justify, so fast forward to now, when I do.

 

I originally thought my new system would be the XSi body, 17-55 f2.8 IS, and the 70-200 L f4 IS. I'm in Urbana,

IL, where there is no camera shop, so I've had to rely on Best Buy to play around with the body. When I first

tried it and again recently, I thought it was acceptable. Until today, when I went to Best Buy to really try to

handle it and the D90 to see how intuitive the menus were and how comfortable the body might be to shoot with for

a long time. And then... I gradually liked the D90 more. Here's the issue.

 

1) I won't be able to afford the D90 and the equivalent Nikon glass... both the Nikon 17-55 (which isn't VR) and

the 70-200 f2.8 are more expensive at the moment than their Canon counterparts. I could go with the D80, but I do

prefer the D90 for various (said sheepishly...) reasons. Even so, the D80 body is still roughly the same price as

the XSi body, so I'm still short $1000 for the difference in cost of the two lenses.

 

2) I plan to do some hiking or at least plenty of traveling with the body, so the reason I settled on the XSi

over, say, the 40D, D80, or the Pentax is that it's lighter. Now that I like the D90, I'm looking at heavier

bodies again.

 

... and the circular logic in the subject is complete. If I go with the Canon XSi, I get a body that's not quite

as comfortable as the D90. It's also missing a top screen, and the UI isn't quite as intuitive for me. If I say,

well, okay, let's pick the comfortable one, the D90 is expensive and heavy. If it's expensive, that means I go

with the 40D, but that's too heavy and it's CF (I want SD). If it's too expensive, I could go with the Pentax

K200D -- a fantastic camera that has some features (weatherproofing, built-in IS) neither the Canon nor the Nikon

have -- but I don't know whether I can "grow" into additional lenses -- not to mention the two lenses I'd want

(16-50 and 60-250) aren't available yet.

 

Originally, when I wasn't looking over my shoulder at what else was out there, the Canon seemed right, even if

the D90 might be a "better" camera. Until I really started playing with them, I thought I had finally made up my

mind (I've wavered on this for about a year now...).

 

Any thoughts?

[hudef]

Sounds like you need an Olympus E-420. Small, with very compact lenses, has built in image stabiization, bargain priced. And using an adapter can use the old SC and SD Minolta lenses! Save your money!

[rainer_t]

-- "Looking at the pictures I've taken so far, the majority lie between 35-80 (on my S3)"

 

Well, technically said, this is wrong. The real focal length on your S3 has been much shorter. It has been something like 7mm - 16mm. What you mean is the 35mm-equivalent focal length ... te focal length to be used on a film SLR to produce the same field of view.

 

-- "so I'm thinking that going with a zoom that starts at 17 mm wide is fair"

 

Now this 17mm is the real focal length ... the equivalence on a film SLR of this is about 28mm. As you see, this is wider as you used to have so far, but not really THAT much.

[rene gm]

Your postings sounds to me, as if you were too concerned with the quality of the camera. Qou might

just get along with a D40 and the Nikon 18-70 or 18-105. If you can afford a more expensive camera like

the very nice D90, then go ahead. Note that it will be obsolete in very few time too. But I think, a budget

camera, lightweight and inexpensive might be just right for you. Save the money for trips!

[colin carron]

When stuck with this sort of problem I find it is best to try a different approach. How about working backwards and

eliminate the one you like least and work upwards? Use all the same criteria of ease of use, cost, lens choice etc.

 

Then make a decision....

 

To encourage you to make a decision these days, in the real world of taking pictures you can't really go far wrong

with any Canon or Nikon DSLR unless you have specific requirements such as the number of frames per second.

[kari v]

Same problem here. I always seem to end up with Canon while I prefer Nikon and Pentax bodies, I guess it's about budget, price/performance and availability (that is, reality...). Pentax K10D is a great body, I really liked it at first touch and almost bought one when they were at 650 euros new. K200D isn't bad at all either, it's sturdiest low-cost body there is but take a look at K20D. Oh my, even the hands off approach to noise reduction pleases my eye (yeah, call me weird).

 

...

 

Ok, I'm not going to rant about this today. Let's just say I feel you but can't help much.

 

Pentax 16-50/2.8 SDM? It has been available for a long time, or is there a new version coming?

(btw: In Canon line-up that would be called 15-47/2.8 L IS USM. ;)

 

 

Alex, E-420 doesn't have sensor shift image stabilization. :(

[steven_f1]

If you like the D90 and find the control and menu more to your liking I would get the D90. The only issue is to then find the lenses you need. Nikon does make a 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 VR lens ($120). Its probably not as good as the 17-55mm. Sigma makes a 18-50mm F2.8 and Tamron has a 17-50mm F2.8 (both for $450) but neither has image stabilization. Image stabilization isn't really necessary at these focal length but can be handy.

 

Instead of the Nikon 70-200mm you might consider the Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 ($915). Sigma and Tamron also make 70-200mm F2.8 lenses (Sigma $800 and Tamron $700) but none have image stabilization. Nikon does make a 55-200mm F4-5.6 VR for ($220).

 

For your information I have a Canon 5D, 17-40mm F4 and the 70-200mm F4 IS. I haven't really had a need for IS on the 17-40mm but I prefer it on telephoto lenses. The 70-200mm F4 IS is a good lens and I am a little surprised that Nikon doesn't have an equivelent. A friend recently did purchase a Xsi and the little I have seen of the menu system is that it is a little confusing (5D has a different menu). I don't have any Nikon equipment or the Sigma, Tamron lenses I have listed so you should do some research on them. Some might be very good. You might also want to order a catalog from B&H to get a better idea as to all of the lenses that are available.

[robertjewett]

It's funny. I went the opposite way (Canon). I already had a coupl of lenses and it just feels better in my hand. That being said, both platforms are great. Get what best suits you. Once you start buying expensive lenses, you be with that brand for a while.

[William Michael]

> I've wavered on this for about a year now... Any thoughts? <

 

Yep: whilst wavering you are not taking any pictures.

 

The issue is you are not applying logic at all - you are attempting to solve the whole problem, but with inadequate data.

 

Without ``doing it`` with a DSLR in your hand, you are not gathering any definitive logic to assist you decide on the development a kit, which will ultimately suit your particular purposes.

 

You are attempting to jump from using the P&S Canon to a full DSLR kit and ``logically`` decide on the contents of that kit by technical data sheets and with a 30 minute in shop handling of the bodies.

 

Your Photography should be an evolution, a journey.

 

My advice:

 

1. Get the Body with which you feel most comfortable. Yes, that is very important. If the intuitive nature of the Nikon menus suits you, go for it. Do not stress about the weight of the body - over a twenty mile hike, the weight difference of the BODY, is miniscule. Do not get bogged down in technocrap.

 

2. Buy the best quality Standard Zoom for whatever body you choose. yes that is important too, you have decided you want a fast good quality standard zoom - by once, good idea. But the difference is price is irrelevant, amortized over the next five years - get the body that draws you to using it and which feels comfortable in your hands.

 

3. Get out and take Photos – lots of them. Then analyse them, and, in regard to your DSLR kit, look at what lens deficiencies you have in regard to what you cannot take but wish you could capture.

 

4. Save more money for your next purchase - if you spend more time taking photos and then analysing them, than merely gesticulating on theory, it is likely your next purchase to your DSLR kit, will be something different anyway.

 

Full Disclosure: I have never owned Nikon gear - apart from few odds and ends: My DSLR kit is Canon. And I also have 2 x Canon Powershot S5 IS, which are very useful - I suggest you keep your S3.

 

WW

[craig_gillette]

You can't fight budget. All you can do is extend your purchasing timeline. Maybe.

 

Under those conditions, you then have to fix your other priorities. Is weight critical, hiking, etc.? Then

"professional" f2.8 lenses are probably going to be heavier than you may want (and very expensive). Will AS do

what you want if f2.8 apertures aren't "needed" for d.o.f. considerations? Have you expanded your considerations

to other brands/systems? Can you tell the difference between say a Sigma 70-200/2.8 in use compared to a Canon?

A Tamron (good copy) 28-75/2.8 and the substantially more expensive system maker professional lenses?

 

If just pondering based on discussions and you know you like the Nikon D90 ergonomics and feel and it meets your

basic performance needs, then maybe you should go for it and be somewhat less critical in lens selections up

front. Choosing between the Nikon 70-300 vr and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (for example) might be exceedingly

difficult. Or the D90 with either the 18-200 vr and the 16-85 vr. Tough choices. Experience will build your

knowledge base and really help you narrow down what it is you need to do what you want. If within your budget

either of those might be good choices.

 

You may not get it right the first time. If you want to be absolutely sure your choices are right, you probably

won't ever commit. However, I'd expect that most people that have more advanced interests didn't "get it right"

the first time.

[xingyuan_wang]

Oh man. I'm glad I asked the question here, because I've never had to respond to every single reply before... if you want to continue reading and see if there are other thoughts to your replies to my reply, here we go:

 

1) Alex: I did take a serious look at the Olympus, but I'm worried about the future expansion as well as high-ISO stuff.

 

2) Rainer T: yes, I agree... I meant that the 35-80 range [35 mm eq] was taken with the S3, not that the 35-80 was the S3 equivalent. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

Though the 27.2 mm isn't too much wider than my current 36 mm wide, there haven't been too many situations where I wished I could go too much wider... but I do know that I wouldn't want to sacrifice any (e.g. go with a 24-70).

 

3) Rene GM: makes good sense to me... something that I'll take a look at in the next few days.

 

4) Colin: it depends on what I consider to be the most important aspect of the camera, which I haven't quite figured out yet. It wasn't until recently, remember, that I figured out the importance of ergonomics! Arguably, I think I'm more comfortable with the lens (and their prices) that Canon has; Pentax and Nikon are both out of the question if I work backwards.

 

5) Kari: I feel your pain! There's just so many questions that I can't answer until I actually do something, but my nature is to understand something fully before giving [this much] of a shot.

 

Also, I was referring to this lens: http://www.photozone.de/pentax/405-pentax_1650_28, which, upon further digging, isn't all that new. :) Thanks for the clarification.

 

6) Steven F: very thoughtful reply, and I appreciate it. Here's my concern. My S3 is extremely flexible (I'll probably have to create another thread about this question...) in that it's small, takes good pictures in most situations, and doesn't require different lenses for one particular shoot (which does, yes, have its drawbacks of course). Having waded through lens reviews from just about every major site, I'm worried that the kit lens won't offer a significant upgrade over the optics of the S3. Sure, in any given situation, a dSLR may do better -- but when I get into challenging shots, I want the dSLR to do better. Apart from the operator, then, the optics are the aspect that *can* directly impact the final image quality. This is NOT to say that I'm capable of taking perfect images and anything that's wrong is the fault of my camera; that's hardly the case. I do, however, want to ensure that if I spend $3000 on a system, I get the best one I can afford... and that also means that I don't particularly want to settle for worse optics just because another body feels better.

 

I guess I'm saying that I'd rather not go down to the kit lens level. I'd love a Nikon 14-24, but I don't think I can afford that and something else to cover the 36-80 mm (35 mm eq) range that I shoot so often with with my S3. That precludes the 18-55 and 55-200 (even if they are *in general* optically very good). The 80-200 is heavier than I'd want...

 

7) Robert: that's part of why I want to make sure I'm making the right decision for me. I don't particularly like the direction Canon is taking with the 40D-50D move, but admittedly, the XTi-XSi move was a good one. I think I'll be safe with either brand. Hopefully. :)

 

Did you go with an XSi or a larger body? If you went with the XSi, what lenses do you use? Do you use a grip?

 

8) William: thanks for the post and some blunt advice. I appreciate it, because all too often I tend to think too much into it... I do have a few thoughts, though:

 

a) *sheepishly* I have been taking pictures... with the S3... I just want more out of the camera. Whether this photographer can do it is another story. :D

 

b) I really think I'd rather have a really decent lens than a somewhat decent lens and a nice body. I'm waiting for the chance to feel the 17-55 on the XSi; if that can't balance out, then I'll start asking serious questions about the D90.

 

c) The thing with the price is that photography is definitely not a source of income for me (I'm an engineering student). While a $1000 difference in price may seem small, I'm not recouping this, and I feel like I have other ways I could use that money saved.

 

This may sound a little like my saying I've made up my mind. In all honesty, I haven't yet, because I'm still surprised at how much different the bodies felt. I can't do anything until I get to feel the two lenses I want to try. This probably sounds silly to those who have no qualms about buying the lenses they need, but I'm a complete noob and seek that reassurance.

 

Sorry for the long reply.

[ianmaleny]

Have a fondle of a Pentax K20. It is really nice. Also the DA*50-135 lens is simply stunning, and the DA*16-50 is also very, very good. Pricewise, compared to the big two, it's a bargain. Just to seal the deal, this whole kit is weather sealed and every lens ever made with the Pentax mount will work on the body, with image stabilization.

[William Michael]

Thanks for the detailed reply.

 

Here are some additional comments for your consideration, specifically to your a, b, c, to me:

 

a) I took a slightly exaggerated point if view to make the point emphatically: you have to experience a DSLR to make decisions to build your kit. Merely taking pictures is great – but the P&S will only give you limited feedback IMO. That`s life.

 

Engineers always seem to love analysis things - this thread might be interesting for you to read, there is quite a bit to analyse in it and, a lot pertains to your situation, especially the fact that you both are using a P&S at the moment, though yours is slightly more flexible in some ways:

 

http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00RTus

 

 

b) Good, Prioritizing is great. I think that money into better glass is a good priority. I still get the feeling that you are weighing the ``how it feels`` too much into the equation of the lens, though. The point is: if you now prioritize the lens above the camera – and the lens is the EF17 to 55F2.8IS (I guess mainly because oft he IS and the money) - then IMO how that lens ``feels on the camera`` is kinda meaningless – because one of the key elements of SLR systems is the interchangeable lens system.

 

c) I seriously understand a Student`s budget and I assumed you were not making money with Photography. A $1000 difference to me is not small, the point I was making was that over the period of time you use the gear it is small – I do understand that you have to pony up the money at the front end: and I was not making light of that.

 

BTW: ``Blunt`` was friendly, IMO it was deemed necessary to get some movement :)

 

Good luck with your choices.

 

WW

[arie_vandervelden1]

<I>Most of my photography will likely be nature-related</i><P>

Get yourself an ultrawide and a macro lens. I suggest Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 90/2.8 (or Sigma 70/2.8 or Sigma

105/2.8). Sigma and Tamron lenses come in Canon and Nikon mounts. So if you like the D90 you can go with

that.<P>

Whether you get the XSi or D90, be sure to pick up the kit lens.

[craig_gillette]

It's important to remember that the most important tool in photography is the one between the ears. Engineers

are often convinced that any problem can be solved with the right process - whether that's selecting the right

tool, measuring it right, crunching the numbers somehow. But that might lead one to consider that "If I just

have the right equipment, my pictures will be right. I "know" how to expose correctly. I even understand the

rules of composition and when/how to ignore them." I have trouble blaming my results on the "tools" I have.

Must be a "process problem."

 

A number of years ago, I and a fair number of other employees were pooled together for some system engineering

training. The company employees were "the future of the company." Most of us were laid off within a year or so

as the program came to an end. One of the areas discussed was dealing with multiple conflicting priorities.

While there are some ways to attempt to apply logic or evaluate the issues objectively, there will be times where

there is no objective right answer. We need a plane that will carry a payload A to a destination at X miles.

But if you also restrict the size or weight of the aircraft to operate from a certain class airstrip, and you

want a certain airspeed. The car must carry 4 people comfortably and get 50 miles per gallon of gas. Oh yeah,

and survive a crash with an 18 wheeler and not cost more than $10,000. You may not be able to do it given current

technology. You have money for A and B, B and C or A and C, but not A, B and C.

 

You can go for the emotional - "I like this choice." or you can find the "architect," the one with the dream or

the idea that drives the project and allow him or her to select the answer that best fits their image of what

"it" should be when done. In this case, you are the "architect" and that means you may need to fall back on emotion.

 

Work down to two choices, say D90 or not D90. Assign them to a coin toss. Heads, D90. Toss the coin. Once.

If your first reaction is "Glad," that's your choice for that problem. If you are not happy - and it is the

immediate response, not one after you've had a chance to think about it, then choose the other. That's supposed

to get past the analytical roadblock.

 

BTW, when it comes to the plane? The military "cheats." In-flight refueling. Unfortunately the personal budget

doesn't allow for "in-flight refueling" with a lot more dollars.

[Renee Shipley]

You won't be able to go to a photo shop and try this one on for size, but I have to tell you that I just recently bought and love using my Sony A100. It's a discontinued model now that there is the A200, 300, 350, 700, and 900 out there.........but image stabilization is in the body and there is a whole plethora of lenses to be had for the A-mount that are quality in terms of results and price. The camera sold for $1,000 as recently as 8 or so months ago. I got mine new from Adorama.com (see the page peeking out of the corner at you?) in August for $459, and last I checked it was down again to something like $429.

 

I find the camera intuitive because I've owned two Minolta film SLRs, but I believe anyone can use the Sony line at least at the basic level very quickly, and start learning to use an SLR. With the savings on the body, you'll be able to get some really really good glass in the ranges you (think you) want, and probably a quality tripod with your budget....something every landscape lover oughta have anyway.

 

Do what's right for you but for just starting out in the SLR world, don't think you have to get the fanciest, newest-out body right away. The important thing is to get one because like someone else said --- with all this indecisiveness going on, you are not taking pictures!!!

[xingyuan_wang]

Excellent replies again... I'll lay out a few thoughts, and then go back to some detail. (Craig, I didn't see your post at

first -- although yours ended up posting just before mine did, yours wasn't up yet when I wrote my reply. I'll reply to

both of your points together.)

 

I think I'll wait until Friday or Saturday of this week to head back up to Chicago and play with some more bodies.

Given the price, lens, and "gut feeling" aspects, I'm [for now] most comfortable with sticking to my guns and going

with the XSi. (I suppose some things have changed since my last post!) If nothing else, I'm getting good quality glass

that should retain its value, so whether I feel like I've made the wrong decision or want to revert to the ease of a P&S,

I'll have some flexibility there. At least everyone here will know that should they be sold, my lenses will hardly have

been used. :)

 

1) Craig: I've been trying to think of a concise way to address your second reply, but it's not coming to me at the

moment. I'll chew on it and see if something comes.

 

As for the first reply, I don't think I have a need for the f2.8. The price is certainly not justified (and for the same price,

I'd rather go with the Canon f4 IS than go with an off-brand f2.8), but the weight is the other crippling factor. Couple

that in with no particular need to open up to 1/2.8... and the Canon f4 IS should work very well for me.

 

Your comment of <<"If you want to be absolutely sure your choices are right, you probably won't ever commit.">> is

also interesting; if I can't get this resolved when I walk into the store, I just might fall back on going with the plan I

had a year ago: D90 (D80 at the time) + 18-200 VR. Maybe it's time to learn the dSLR first, then move to glass,

rather than learn a dSLR and empty my bank account at the same time. :)

 

Last thing: if I were to flip a coin, and it landed in favor of the D90, I wouldn't be too pleased... the path for my lenses

choices is far less defined with that brand, unfortunately. I would need to take a serious look at additional

possibilities before I'd be comfortable.

 

2) William: no offense taken about the money issue or anything else, and I totally understood your original intention

as well. If anything, I wrote the original question and subsequent replies completely dry; I didn't want this to come off

as a "Help my photos suck and what dslr will make me a better photographer?"-type thread. You and Craig both

mentioned the aspect of engineers being analytical -- you [both] have me pinned there. To me, everything should

make sense in some form of numbers. I didn't let emotion (well, I did think Nikons look better... but for me, usually

function > form) get to me until I picked up the D90, but even now, with all the lens choices, I think I'm leaning in

favor of the XSi.

 

3) Arie -- good idea on the ultra-wide. At the moment, without having needed a super-wide of that nature (16 mm eq

on the Sigma you proposed, for instance), I'll probably stick to a kit-esque focal length zoom and then see where

things go as I develop. If I go with the Canon, I'd probably favor the 17-55 in place of the kit lens, but if I were to go

with the Nikon (or another system altogether), the kit would likely be thrown in. Thanks for the heads up and

suggestion!

 

4) Renee: funny you should mention that; I discounted Sony because of some childish notions. I might head over to

the local Best Buy and add another contendah to my list. I do have a fairly decent -- for my needs -- tripod (forgot to

mention and thanks for bringing that up!), so luckily, I don't have to add in another $250 for that item this time

around. :)

 

Again, thanks for all the replies as you sit and eat your popcorn through this comical ordeal!

[xingyuan_wang]

Crap -- forgot to mention Ian's post. I have a friend at work who shoots with the K10D, so I plan to play around with that when he brings it in. In all honesty, I really like the features of the K200D, but I just haven't had the opportunity to mess around with one. That's the drawback to getting started in a city with no remaining camera stores...

[don_e]

"Most of my photography will likely be nature-related."

 

You offer your deliberations on camera and lens choices, but little on your photography, so I'll make some assumptions...

 

Nature has lots of high frequency detail and you'll want a lens that can resolve it with few aberrations and distortions -- and in a zoom, especially in the range that you will commonly use. I'd search out the lenses first, then choose a body to mount them or it on. The bodies you mention are fairly similar as far as pixel density, dynamic range, and megapixels, so it may not matter much which one. Issues such as IS, weight, bulk, and 'handholdability' are secondary because you should use a tripod and remote release. Good accessories would be several neutral density filters and if your hikes are at altitude, a circular polarizer.

 

Put the money into the lenses. You can always buy a better body for it later.

[xingyuan_wang]

Hi Don,

 

You make an extremely valid point... I should probably put up a few images. I'm nervous about doing so, though, because unlike, say, Marc Adamus' photography, I don't yet any photos that pop. There have been a few instances where I know I (as the photographer, not my equipment) failed to execute, so if the overwhelming consensus is that I really shouldn't even bother spending a dime... heh... this solves all my issues. :)

[xingyuan_wang]

Gah I keep forgetting to update my post (mods, if you want to copy/paste this into the reply I just wrote, feel free...)

 

What I meant about Marc Adamus' photography wasn't that my photos are in any way even close. They don't pop, lack satisfactory composition (in hindsight), and some aren't even exposed correctly... my comment was simply to note that I'm nervous about sharing photos in a setting where everyone is capable of images far better than my own. Among friends, many of whom haven't been able to get out to take pictures like I do, it's fine; among professionals... I'm a bit more reserved.

[William Michael]

``It's important to remember that the most important tool in photography is the one between the ears.

 

EXCELLENT post.

 

***

 

``as you sit and eat your popcorn through this comical ordeal!``

 

EXCELLENT attitude - Engineers DO have a sense of Humour!

 

Keep us posted with updates!

 

Cheers,

 

WW

[craig_gillette]

"It's time to shoot the engineers and go into production." Stop responding. Buy something. Go take pictures.

 

Then when you have some sort of hard data (it works for you or it doesn't), then adjust your thinking or your kit and shoot some more.

[William Michael]

> Keep us posted with updates! <

 

BTW, That comment was slightly tongue in cheek, but still nice

 

:)

 

***

 

My vote too: facta non verba

 

WW

[steven_f1]

Xingyuan, Having a camera you understand is very important. I encourage you to continue to look at other cameras

at the store. Don't get a camera that has controls and menus that confuse you.

 

I understand the desire to avoid low quality lenses. But there are times when you really have no choise or the

expensive lenses is not the best choise. The key point in my earlier post was that there are options to the Nikon

lenses you listed. Other options are to:

 

1, Buy one lens and save up for the other.

 

2, Look for a used Nikor 70-200mm lens.

 

3, Buy a lower cost lens for now and upgrade later when you have the funds. Since you are new to photography it

might not be a good idea to get the most expensive lens first.

 

4, Buy lower cost lenses and invest some of the savings in accessories such as a tripod, cable release, sensor

cleaning kit etc... Sometimes a tripod has a bigger impact on image quality then the lens.

 

As I mentioned in my earlier post I did purchase the Canon lenses you were considering with a 5D. However I didn't

go into the purchase blind and I had some unique reasons to go with canon. I had been using film with two Pentax

camera for about 10 years. Some of it was expensive and some of it was cheep. And some of the cheep stuff was

better than the expensive stuff. I learned that money is not always the best indicator of quality. Look at the lens

review on this site and others before you buy. Perhaps the one of the Sigma or Tamron lenses I mentioned are as

good as the Nikor. Some other items you should consider before the purchase are:

 

1, How good is the repair servise? Look for people on this site that had problems and had to get a repair. Is there a

repair center near by?

 

2, Are a lot of other accessories available from the company or other vendors?

 

3, Is the weight of all the lenses an issue? If you like to do 5 mile hikes do you want to carry a very heavy lens?

Weight was one of the primary reasons why I purchases the 70-200mm lens. However it didn’t meet all of my

needs. I later purchases a second telephoto lens for those times when the 70-200mm was not the best choice.

 

Overall you have done very will in considering which camera to buy. You have gone to the store and looked at the

camera, I didn't. You have asked for advise, I didn't. I got lucky. Keep doing what you are doing and you should do

well. Just try to avoid quick decisions and don't let the sales person push you into a purchase.