About to make the plunge and I need some advice

[james_legan]

<p>To make a long story short, I had for a brief time last year a Nikon D90. It took great pictures, but I was not completely sold on owning a camera that expensive (actually, I was not sold on spending that much money on Nikkor glass). Now that I have been DSLR free for the better part of a year, I miss it terribly. I have gotten the chance to play with the 50D and I have decided to go Canon instead of Nikon for round two since I am starting from scratch.<br /><br />Here in lies my problem... The glass.<br /><br />Right now I am torn between 3 lenses and I can really only afford one of them for the forseeable future. This may see like an odd assortment, but let me preface the list with the type of pictures I like to take. I do a lot of indoor photography (people, pets, etc...). I do not do a ton of action shots. I am not a huge fan of flash photography and when I had my D90, my 50mm 1.8 prime was on it almost exclusively (although the only other lens I had was the kit). I love deep smooth bokeh and the type of photos I took with it and enjoyed the most were something like this:<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.legan.me/Animals/Andromeda-Rommie/A-star-was-born/Rommie-Jasmine-and/439658818_UacJF-M.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

<p>Ok, so here are the lenses:<br /><br />1) Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM<br />2) Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM<br /><br />Both will run me $1K+. I was originally leaning towards getting non-L glass and getting an assortment, but I would rather get one solid lens and have it for a while and get a zoom/prime later if it will be reflected in the pictures. The aperture difference is significant which is why I am torn. I have no problem shooting prime and sneaker zooming around if it means stopping life in natural or ambient light.<br /><br />Also, should I just get over my flash photography issue and get the 580EX II while I am at it?<br />Should I forgoe the L glass in leiu of nice consumer glass on a 50D crop body?<br /><br />Thanks in advance,<br /><br />Jim</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Jim,</p>

 

<p>A few observations.</p>

 

<p>First, the 24-70 on a crop sensor body is awfully long for a “walkaround” lens.

It’s the same field of view as a 40-112 on full frame. For the kind of work you describe,

you’d probably be better served by one of the 18(ish)-55(is) EF-S lenses. All four major

manufacturers (Canon, Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma) should offer one, and I think they’re all

offering a constant f/2.8 version of the lens.</p>

 

<p>If you’re really sold on that focal length range, though, give some serious thought to the

Tamron 28-75. Optically, it’s excellent, and it’s a lot lighter and cheaper than the

Canon. Autofocus isn’t especially fast, but that’s about the only way it falls

short.</p>

 

<p>As for normal (for the crop format) primes, you have a number of choices. In addition to the

Canon 35 f/1.4, there’s the Canon 35 f/2. The price difference is an awful lot for one extra

stop, but that’s something for you to decide. But also consider the 28 f/1.8, which is a little

bit wider and almost as fast as the 35L, but much cheaper. Third-party manufactures are also

making primes in this focal range, some reported to be excellent and others not so great.</p>

 

<p>Lastly, if you have the cash for a good flash, then by all means get it. It permits you to not

merely add to, but to alter the light you’re shooting in. And even when there’s enough

light to get a “proper” exposure, a touch of bounced flash can do wonders to enhance

contrast (and lots more).</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>You're in luck. On a crop body, any of the non-L Canon primes will give you excellent results at a lower cost than the two lenses you named. I wouldn't recommend a zoom for you since you like the look of shallow depth of field. The 35/2 is especially useful. On a full-frame camera it is soft in the corners wide-open, but extremely sharp in the center; close it down to f/5.6 and it is sharp all over. On a crop camera, the blurry corners are invisible, so the lens is essentially perfect. My only complaint is that it is an old design and does have an audible motor sound when focusing. The 50/1.4 is basically silent, and performs about the same as the 35/2, f-stop for f-stop on a crop camera. Wide-open it has a soft contrast which is very nice for portraits; by f/2 it is sharp. If I had to choose between the two (for money or convenience/portability reasons) I would get the 35 because it's possible to crop a shot taken with the 35 and simulate the look of the 50 (at modest enlargement size) but not the other way around.</p>

<p>Regarding flash: yes, get the 580 EXII and learn how to do bounce flash and how to use it for outdoor photography. It will make more of an impact on your pictures than the lens by far. I would recommend getting either the Canon ST2E remote flash or buying into one of the third-party remote flash systems so that you can take it off the camera--it opens up a whole world of beautiful artificial lighting.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Sigma makes a 30mm f/1.4 that would be worth considering. It isn't full-frame compatible, but it's much less than the 35mm f/1.4 you're pondering. That, plus a 50/1.8 and the 18-55 IS kit lens will give you an excellent start for well under $1k.</p>

<p>Incidentally there is an excellent Canon review site - with detailed reviews of cameras and lenses. It's at</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/</p>

[james_legan]

<p>Ken,<br>

Would you suggest the Canon 35mm f2 over the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Canon 28mm f1.8?<br>

I am looking at the reviews and it seems like both are a lot more lens for approx $100 more.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jim</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>I love deep smooth bokeh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you liked a 50mm on the D90 with its 1.5 crop factor then I would recommend getting a 50mm on the 50D (APS-C sensor, crop factor 1.6). The field of view would be about the same on both cameras. The <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/560577-USA/Sigma_310_101_Normal_50mm_f_1_4_EX.html">Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX </a>lens has better bokeh then either of the Canon equivelents. It currently sells for $500. </p>

<p>However I would suggest you at least get a zoom for those times when a 50mm won't do and zooming with your feet is not possible (that happens to me way to often). Since you like smooth Bokeh it should also be a constant f2.8 lens. The first thing I would suggest you do is look at your D90 photos taken with the kit lens. The EXIF data in each photo should tell you what focal length was used. The focal lengths that you used frequently should be covered by your next zoom lens. </p>

<p>The most common focal length used APS-C cameras like the 50D have a focal length of about 18-50mm. The <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463428-REG/Sigma_581101_18_50mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html">Sigma 18-50 F2.8</a> and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html">Tamron 17-50 F2.8</a> are currently selling about $450. Thats still within your budget of $1000. If you really want a lens with 24-70 focal length the only one within the $500 limit is the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284399-REG/Tamron_AF09C700_28_75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html">Tamron 28-75 F2.8</a>. Sigma does sell a 28-70 F2.8 but it would push you out of your budget. The Canon equivalents are all about $1000 or higher. </p>

<p>Of all the lenses I have the only one I own is the Sigma 50 F1.4 which I use on my 5D MkI. The only issue with the lens is that it is a little soft on the edges on a full frame camera (the Canon 50 F1.4 is worse). However the 50D is an APS-C camera so you won't see this. I don't own the other lenses. Hopefully someone else can advise you on them. </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Here in lies my problem... The glass ... Right now I am torn between 3 lenses and I can really only afford one ... I love deep smooth bokeh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Consider makes outside of Canon and Nikon; specifically, look at Pentax. Here's the deal: the lenses you're looking for can be had for 1/10th and less the price of new optics, but you'll have to buy used. In this case, used means manual focus optics from the 60's forward. For primes with focal lengths of, say, 35mm through 90mm, the high end of the old stuff is essentially comparable to the best available today. </p>

<p>Of the current crop of camera manufacturers, Pentax has maintained the best backward compatibility. This means focus confirmation works and the least chance of running into metering awkwardness. You'll also get the benefit of stabilization (via the camera body) thrown in even on a four decade old lens. </p>

<p>The Pentax lenses tend to have the most moderate prices. This is unrelated to quality, merely that Pentax tends to have the least patina of collectability.</p>

<p>Oh, the new micro-4/3 cameras are excellent candidates for adapting old lenses as well. The more aggressive sensor crop, however, tends to favor more telephoto uses.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I'm heavily invested in the Canon EOS system - in the form of lenses, and with a large fraction of that L zooms. If I were to start again today, however, I'm not sure I'd be going down the same equipment path. By the way, this isn't an indictment of (the excellent) Canon lineup, but merely that I know better now the kind of photography I like to do.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>1. What's the third lens?</p>

<p>2. If it was the EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS I'd say go for it.</p>

<p>3. That said, if you really liked the 50mm f.o.v. why not get a fast fifty. (Canon 1.8, Canon or Sigma 1.4) (I really like the 50D plus EF 50/1.4, but that's just me.)</p>

<p>4. Why not get two lenses? Like a wide to short tele zoom and a "cheap" fast 50.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I second the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75 2.8s. If you really want to spend a lot I would go with the 17-55 IS. If you like blurring the background something like the Sigma 50-150 2.8 is a great tool as well. I have the Tokina 50-135, but it was recently discontinued. </p>

[james_legan]

<p>Robert,<br>

I heavily researched the K-7 from Pentax and that 40mm pancake lens was especially appealing. However, after I got to play with both of them, I ruled out the Pentax due to some IQ concerns (could have been the one I was using) and upgradability should I go that way down the road.</p>

 

[james_legan]

<p>Ok,</p>

<p>I did a lot of playing today. How does the following setup sound:</p>

<p>50D (body only)<br />17-55mm f2.8<br />580EX II<br />Fong Collapsible Cloud Diffuser (got to play with this at the local photo shop today)</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>I can hold off on a longer zoom and possibly a faster prime down the road, possibly the sigma 30mm.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>I'd guess that a 50D and 17-55/2.8 IS should keep you very happy for a long time.</p>