Lens and camera combinations for best quality and efficiency.

[scottelly]

<p>What do you think of this set of equipment for the best in quality, versatility, and portability?<br>

Please keep in mind that I am assuming that prime lenses are what I want, both for image quality, control over depth of field, and low-light capabilities.<br>

I would like some redundancy, and frankly, I can't see the need for sticking with just one line of equipment. I am a Canon shooter with some experience shooting a Sony R1. I recently bought a Nikon D5000 with Nikon's 18-55mm VR kit lens (which is supposed to give good quality images, but in my opinion falls short of acceptable). I am thinking I might get the new Sony with the Sony 16-105mm as a walk-around kit, but I like Canon and Nikon prime lenses. Specifically, I would like to get the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 (one of those rare zooms that produces image quality as good as a prime) and the Nikon 50mm f1.2 (the old manual focus one). I would like to use those two lenses on my Nikon D5000 and a Nikon D700 or D3s. I would also like to have Canon's 85mm f1.2 L, because I think that lens is the best 85mm lens available. With a 5D Mk II and a 1D Mk4 as well as a 7D that lens would be the equivalent to three amazing lenses. I could add the Canon 200mm f2 L IS and the Canon 400mm f2.8 L IS, and the three lens kit with three cameras would be the equivalent of a nine lens kit with just one camera (giving me the advantage of having just 6 Canon items instead of 10).<br>

I know the last two lenses would set me back like as much as all the other equipment combined, so those lenses would be last . . . especially the 400mm (at about $7,000). I would probably start with the Nikon D700 and Nikon 50mm f1.2 lens, which I can use on my D5000 as a 75mm. I absolutely LOVE the photos from my old Nikon 50mm f1.8, and from what I've read, the 50mm f1.2 is the best 50mm lens there is (other than maybe some Leica or something really rare like that). I figure I could get the Nikon 14-24mm next, and then the Canon 1D Mk4 with the Canon 85mm f1.2 L. Then I can get the Canon 7D and then eventually the 5D Mk2 and the Canon 200mm f2 L IS. I realize this all may seem very weird, but isn't it the lenses that make the photos what they are? And wouldn't it make sense to have a lens on a camera and ready to go, rather then having to change lenses all the time?<br>

Yes, I know . . . five cameras seems like overkill, but I figure I could get by with two or three for most shoots and most of the time I could leave all but one camera and lens combo in my bag, with the lenses attached, switching lenses only when necessary. My thinking is that with five cameras and five lenses I could have the equivalent of one camera and about a dozen lenses at about the same weight, but I would have multiple camera bodies for redundancy and feature flexibility (i.e. the swivel screen on my Nikon D5000 is the main reason I bought it, and having the Canon 1D Mk4 would give me high-speed shooting ability).<br>

I shoot a variety of stuff, from landscapes (wide AND long) and flowers (usually close-ups) to portraits of models. I even shoot architectural stuff from time to time (I won't get into the tilt-shift lenses I would like to eventually get for the Canon 5D Mk2).<br>

So why Canon AND Nikon? Now that Canon has the 60 D, maybe it's time to switch back, right? Not for me. I like many of the features my Nikon has that Canon doesn't offer with their cameras (as far as I know). I would like the video features of the Canon 7D and the speed of shooting that camera offers too, and the Nikon 14-24mm is in my opinion the ULTIMATE wide angle lens, so I am not giving up on Nikon. I also like the idea of being able to try the old, cheap lenses. They all have their own look and offer interesting, artisitc lens flare capabilities at a fraction of the price of a new lens.<br>

The Sony SLT-A55 would be my walk-around camera, which I'm thinking about getting for Christmas. I like the fact that it has a flip-out screen like the Nikon, and it has the ability to shoot faster (10 frames per second?!?), auto-focus better in live-view mode (it is basically always in live-view mode), and I like the idea of the 16-105mm Sony lens with the image stabilization (which is in the body of the Sony camera). Starting with the Sony, adding the Nikon 50mm f1.2 and eventually the Nikon D700 and 14-24mm f2.8 lens, I think I'll have a good start toward the ultimate set of camera equipment. What do YOU think?<br>

Am I making any sense, or do I sound like a whack job?</p>

[Ray House]

<p>Sometimes instead of equipment upgrades, photographer upgrading helps... I would say use the Nikon D5000 and take a workshop. There will be certain needs that will surface and dictate what equipment you need. I would advise staying with one system for serious work. Best to ya.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Hi Scott,</p>

<p>I looked through your images and found the following to be correctly exposed -<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/5420556<br>

The rest are all problematic to my eye in terms of exposure. The landscapes comprised of nice compositions but were underexposed.<br>

I don't believe that your problem can be solved through buying more kit, however, it could be definitely eliminated by learning to get the best of your existing kits. Do note that almost 60% of the features in modern cameras are never used.<br>

I believe that you need to learn metering and how light affects an image plain. Please take a look at some of the best rated landscapes as well as the pseudoglamour or nude work bu the best photographers here. The latter is a speciality of John Peri so do search for his gallery.<br>

A able photographer is capable of producing excellent images through inferior equipment. An able photographer is capable of producing excellent images with less effort with superior equipment.</p>

 

[alvinyap]

<p>Hello mate, you lost me when you started talking about Canon, then Sony. Is there really a need to own 3 camera systems? Granted, I've shot my fair share of systems in order to find the system that works best for me, but right now I only shoot one because it's the best compromise. For me. Just think back to earlier days, where stunning photographs were taken using older equipment.</p>

<p>If the D5000 is not working out for you, I find that strange. Post some pictures in the nikon forum to see what's wrong (are you comparing jpegs between the brands you shoot or raws?) If it's not a hardware fault (the 18-55VR is a great lens for the price) - it's down to operator error.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>What do YOU think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously you have a big plan. Go for it and start it today. Keep us informed on which piece you just buy</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Wow, you've apparently got financial resources FAR beyond what I could ever dream! OK, let's say you're as rich as Bill Gates. This is what I'd tell Bill:</p>

<p>Pick ONE camera manufacturer. Just ONE. There's no need for more. Base your decision on the entire range of their offerings that might vaguely interest you. There's such a thing as having too many cameras: You'll have a hard time becoming comfortable with any one of them. If you're constantly thumbing through manuals to figure out how to change this or that setting, then you've got too many cameras. My personal "too many" mark seems to be about 4. Mind you, I COLLECT cameras, but I only use three of them with any frequency.</p>

<p>With a basic outfit in hand, invest in the most important acquisition any photographer can have: knowledge. You can take courses. You can read online tutorials. You can practice, practice, practice. There are many possible paths to proficiency. I'm not saying you're a bad photographer. This is advice I would give to ANY photographer, and it is advice I have followed myself and will continue to follow until I'm dead.</p>

<p>Many will tell you that a good photographer can take good photos with any camera, including a $12 disposable (or whatever they cost). This is true. However, it doesn't negate the fact that a good photographer can more consistently and more frequently take good photos with a good camera. That's why good photographers usually have good cameras. However, I also strongly believe that a bad photographer can't take a good photo with anything, except by dumb luck, and dumb luck doesn't happen very often. That's why education, experimentation, practice, etc. are so important. But good tools are important too. Don't let people tell you otherwise.</p>

[steve_solomon2]

<p>Scott, while I envy your finances with the ability to purchase so many systems, bodies, and lenses, I agree with other posters that I think it best to find ONE system that meets your needs in terms of quality, diversity, portability, and ergonomics, and stick with that, only buy what you absolutely need, and master it in terms of functionality and photographic technique. I feel if you do that, then you will see a great improvement in your photography. Frankly, IMHO, both Canon and Nikon are pretty equal in terms of overall system and image quality, with of course, differences across specific lenses. As for portability, carrying several DSLR bodies with lenses attached (especially that 400mm one!), is <strong><em>not</em></strong> my idea of "portability"! I went with a Panasonic Lumix G2 mainly for portability, hopefully without sacrificing too much in terms of overall image quality. It's no Nikon or Canon FF system, but the Panny 20mm f/1.7 optic got glowing reviews, as did the Panny 7-14mm wide zoom. Plus, it gives versatility as far as other manufacturers optics (with adapter). I'm still testing the system, and will see what a custom 16x20 print looks like nexxt week. That will be the decider for me. Good luck to you sir.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Canon G11 if you want complicated. Ricoh GRD3 if you want simple. Anything else is overkill. :-)</p>

[steve_solomon2]

<p>Scott, upon further reflection on your original post, I think you may have a touch of the dreaded "L disease". Symptoms include sweaty palms when passing camera stores, insatiable lust for expensive optics, rapid heart rate when handling high-dollar bodies, and palpitations when pixel-peeping. I too, have suffered from this malady, and regretably, have not found a "cure"; only treatment: Get the best equipment you can afford, study good photography books, techniques, etc., and get out there and shoot some images! I think you'll find that great image quality can be obtained with less than the most expensive equipment.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I agree Steve. I have decided that all I need for now is a digital SLR with a swiveling screen that I can use in live-view mode. I've made some prints at 20x30 inches from my Sony R1 and my Canon 5 D that look spectacular. Since I can't tell the difference in quality from the prints at such a big size, I've decided that I don't really need super high resolution images, like what I'd get from large format. I would still like the ability to tilt my lens more than 8 or 10 degrees though, which is one of the wonderful aspects of large format, so I'm just going to have to see what can be done about that. The thing is I doubt that I'd be able to afford the equipment for a while anyway, and who knows what will come out onto the market in the next year or so. Time to get myself a replacement for my Nikon D5000 (which was recently stolen). I'm going to get a used Nikon D70 with a used lens for now, and then I'm going to get the new Sony A55 with a pair of Sigma lenses (8-16 and 18-250 OS). If the 18-250 doesn't produce the quality I want for landscapes, I'll sell it and get an 18-50 f2.8. and a 70-300 OS. I'm going to stick with Sigma though, because I'm planning to try the new Sigma SD1 next year, when it becomes available, and I want to be able to get the same lenses for it that I have for my Sony A55.<br>

-<br>

Do I sound like enough of a nut job now? lol</p>

[scottelly]

<p>So just to throw in a little monkey wrench, I was looking at PixelPeeper.com, and I think I like the stats and image quality of the Sigma 17--70 f2.8-4 DC. I'm thinking that a super-zoom like the 18-250 will not give me the quality I want most of the time, so I may end up with two cameras - one with the 17-70 and one with a 70-300. I'm wondering if anyone here knows if the Sigma 17-70 in its macro version for Sony/Minolta is actually an OS and/or HSM lens.<br>

-<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670028-REG/Sigma_668205_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_Macro.html<br>

-<br>

You can see at the page where the link above takes you that the photo shows it as an HSM lens, but it is not listed as such. It is not listed as an OS lens either, but I've read that it is, even in reviews right there at that page on the B&H site (see reviews).<br>

-<br>

I'm also thinking the 18-250 might be a good backup for a pair of lenses, so I might take it along anyway. I'm thinking I'll stick with Sigma lenses, so when I shoot with my Sigma kit (eventually I want to get a 3-lens kit with the New Sigma SD1) I will get identical results (but at higher resolution). It would be great if I could just use the same lenses, but unfortunately Sigma won't be making a Sony/Minolta mount version of the SD1 (unless I am misinformed).<br>

-<br>

So my main question is does anyone know if the Sony version of the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC macro zoom is actually an HSM lens, and also does anyone know if that lens has OS?<br>

-<br>

I'd also like to know if anyone thinks the 17-70, with its macro capability is a better choice than all the other lenses offered by Sigma for a walk-around lens to be used in conjunction with a 70-300. I'm thinking about my final set of equipment here, which I want to be a pair of Sony A55 bodies with a Sigma 17-70 on one and a Sigma 70-300 on the other, and a Sigma 8-16 in my pocket/bag, eventually duplicated in an all-Sigma kit consisting of a pair of Sigma SD1 bodies with the same lenses as I will have for the Sony cameras. I am dedicated to finding a good set of equipment, but I want versatility with a camera that has a fold-out screen and good live-view focusing (the Sony A55). For situations when I don't need video or the versatility of the Sony, I will use the Sigma SD1 for its amazing image quality. I plan to buy all this equipment over the next year (starting with some of it right away - Sony A55 with Sigma 17-70 or 18-250), so I don't see the equipment landscape changing much, since these are pretty much all cutting-edge lenses and cameras.<br>

-<br>

Ray House, I do understand that it is the photographer using the camera that counts the most, but I believe I have the technical knowledge now, and I want a set of equipment that will allow me to be as creative and able as possible over the next two or three years (hopefully even more), and concentrate on learning and developing the skill and photographer's eye that I hope to have some day. Therefore I want to have a full set of kick-ass, versatile equipment, and not constantly be looking at what's next. I found that when I had my Canon 5D with my 17-40mm f4 L, 50mm f1.4, and 70-200 f2.8 L IS there was very little thought in my head about equipment, and I just learned. Eventually I wanted a tilt-shift lens and when my 17-40 was stolen I bought the Sigma 12-24, which was a truly amazing lens, but I rediscovered equipment for a while, because of the new video features coming out in cameras and because of my exposure to the new Nikon D5000, which I eventually bought and loved. I suspect that some day I will rediscover equipment again, but I'm hoping what I buy over the next year will help me to avoid that train of thought and allow me to think more about technique and artistic inspiration. Once I have the equipment I want (maybe even before I start on the Sigma kit), I do plan to spend some money on learning from a master or two, attending workshops here and there and getting some personal training from advanced photographers in my area. One day I'd like to spend a few days learning from some of the great photographers, like those who give workshops in Oaxaca, Mexico. I figure 5 or 6 workshops in 2012 should do the trick, giving me lots and lots to think about and practice. Maybe by 2015 I will have the skills and inspiration I want to have, in order to be the photographer I dream of being.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I was just doing some research, and it looks like I may "enhance" my Sigma kit with the Sigma 20mm and 28mm f1.8 aspherical fixed focal length lenses. I may also end up getting the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 Sigmas to "complete" my "set" of fixed focal length lenses. That will give me 7 lenses total for the Sigma SD1 cameras, and no doubt it will take me a while to save up the money to buy them (1 each month, and probably two months of saving for the 85mm), but after six months of collecting them I should have my set complete. I imagine I'll start with the 20mm and 50mm and then add the 28mm and leave the 85mm for last. Anyone have any alternate suggestions?</p>

[scottelly]

<p>O.K. I have an alternate suggestion for myself! lol<br>

-<br>

I was looking at Sigma lenses some more, and I found two very inexpensive OS HSM lenses that I had been thinking about getting previously. Both of them combined would be less money than the 17-70, and they would afford me enough savings that it would only cost about $500 more, and I could have a range all the way up to 500mm by adding the 150-500mm for $1,000. Then I would have a four lens sytem with a small gap between 16mm and 18mm. Here is my list:<br>

-<br>

8-16mm f4.5-5.6 DC HSM = $700<br>

18-50mm f2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM = $200<br>

50-200mm f4-5.6 DC OS HSM () = $170<br>

150-500mm f5-6.3 DC OS HSM (4.2 lbs.) = $1,000<br>

-<br>

The last three lenses total $1,370 and would replace two lenses which would total $850. They would not give me macro capability like the 17-70 would, and like I said, I would miss the 17mm range, but gain the 300-500mm range (and some extra weight). I really don't see a lot of issue with a four lens kit vs. a 3 lens kit though, especially in the Sigma lens mount kit, because the added 3 lbs. or so is not going to make that much difference, since I will most-likely be carrying at least one of my Sony A55 cameras with a wide to tele zoom on it also (for times when I need the 10 fps or swivel screen capabilities). Besides, if I get some primes, including a macro lens or two, the Sigma kit will be extra heavy anyway.<br>

-<br>

I really don't think I will want to spend $5,000 more to get the 300-800mm Sigma, and I want OS at the long end of my lens range, something the 300-800 doesn't seem to have. Besides, that lens is ridiculously heavy (12 lbs), making my equipment about twice as heavy!</p>