What body to hang off a 35mm L

[israel1]

<p>Hi all.</p>

<p>I was using a Nikon D40 before I went overseas in January. I exchanged it towards a D300, but it's now April and I can count the times I took the D300 out on both hands and both feet. It was too heavy and large and thank Gd I had my Canon P&S with me.</p>

<p>Now that I've returned to Johannesburg I am considering switching to the Rebel range. The combination of:</p>

<ol>

<li>a smaller body with built-in-motor; </li>

<li>G9 flash compatibility and </li>

<li>the chance to shoot some 'L' glass are pulling me in this direction. </li>

</ol>

<p>Following a trade-in of all my Nikon gear Im budgeting R18,000 towards a new purchase which will net me an 35mm f/1.4 L prime (R14,000) and ....</p>

<p>Well, I need a body to hang off it. At that price range Im looking at (R4000) one of the following:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>450D (used) </li>

<li>1000D (new) </li>

<li>400D (used, will take my CF cards)</li>

</ul>

<p>Which one would you suggest?</p>

<p>thanks for your advice</p>

<p>R</p>

[g dan mitchell]

That lens is just fine, but I think you may be vastly overestimating the potential for transformation and General

Wonderfulness that it might bring.

 

Dan

[simon_sutcliffe]

<p>I would say a 40D Great body (Uses CF Cards) and can be bought quite cheaply and isn't too big</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>The 450D serves me well. ISO is usually acceptable in the 400-800 range, though I rarely shoot it at 800. The burst rate is pretty good - I can get 4-5 RAW shots pretty quickly before the buffer fills up. If you're not going to print really large prints it should do you fine.<br>

I chose it over the XS (I think 1000D) for burst rate, spot metering and I think the other factor was LCD size. I do like that it self-cleans the sensor for dust too.<br>

I hope this helps.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[israel1]

<p>Thanks Guys.</p>

<p>G Dan, my thinking is to go for a small flash and then 135/2 L in the next 12 months with the aim of having a small, portable dSLR kit. If not, for that kind of money I'm sure I could look at either a 17-40 L + flash / 85/1.8, and still have some change ... I have shot the 17-40 & a 24-105 + 20D on a hike in December last year and both proved to be very good.</p>

<p>Simon, a great camera I'm sure, though size and weight wise, isn't it close to the D300?</p>

<p>DS, thanks for the practical advice. I don't think it makes sense to aim for anything less than a 450D.</p>

[israel1]

<p>Dan, what do you suggest?</p>

[Brad_]

I use my 35/1.4 every day on my 5DII.

 

As much as I like it, if you're sensitive to cost debating different bodies, you might consider the 35/2.0.

Costs about $1,000 less than the 1.4 and you won't be giving up a lot.

 

It's also MUCH smaller and lighter, something to consider when hanging it off a small body like the 450D.

[John Crowe]

<p>There are AF-S versions of most of the lenses that you are considering, so maybe stick with Nikon.</p>

<p>It is not that Canon intro cameras have motors, because none of Canon Eos cameras have motors, it is that, unlike Nikon, all the lenses have motors. </p>

<p>It is ridiculous that Nikon does not put motors in its intro bodies, but if you have the money most of their lenses are being switched to AF-S, unfortunately all G too, but then so are Canon's.</p>

<p>I currently use a D2X for sports and a 1Ds for everything else.</p>

[pturton]

<p>Russ, since you are considering the weight of your camera package, the 450D weighs 1 lb. (475g) and the 35L weighs 1.5 lb. (680g). Together they weigh more than the D300 body 1.82 lb. (825g).</p>

<p>Although the 35L is a great lens, as Brad says, the 35 /f2.0 might be a better consideration for you. </p>

<p>The 17-40L is lighter than the 35L and may be more versatile to you if you get a flash as you suggest.</p>

 

[israel1]

<p>Brad, I thought the idea was to combine the best lens with the best body one can afford?<br /> <br />I realise I am taking this argument to an extreme here - 14k is overkill on a single focal length lens - so perhaps I need to phrase this differently:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want to get the best bang for my buck that will meet my need for a small body camera / lens combo that I can grab for a hike anywhere I want and secure top notch IQ. I have a budget of R18k.<br /> The most up-to-date camera lens combo would then be:</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon EOS 600D (body only) R8,295.00</li>

<li>Canon EF 35 mm f 2.0 - R 2,751.77</li>

<li>Canon EF 85 mm f 1.8 USM - R 3,589.67</li>

</ul>

<p>This would leave money over for a flash.</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon SPEEDLITE 430 EX Mk II - R 2,495.00</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>Or, like John says:<br>

the lack of AF-S in the canon range is a minus. FYI, I have a 35/1.8 AF-S; 60/2.8 Af-S Micro, 18-70/3.5-4.5 AF-S & an SB 700 flash.<br>

<br />If 'L' glass is too unrealistic in terms of price (and weight - THANK YOU for pointing THAT out) maybe I should just trade the D300 and 18-70 in towards a D3100 and keep on shooting?</p>

[israel1]

<p>going round in circles here</p>

[martin-s]

<blockquote>

<p>"[…] that will meet my need for a small body camera / lens combo that I can grab for a hike anywhere I want and secure top notch IQ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For hiking I would seriously consider a crop-body such as the 600D and the excellent EF-S 15-85mm. That gives you a very nice reach from a proper wide angle to a mild tele. If you want a fast prime such as th 85mm you can add that later, but my first aim would be versatility in a compact combination.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Yes, Russ, if the weight/portability to IQ ratio is your paramount concern (within a constrained budget), I think you'd be better off with a 35/2 and 85/1.8 on a 600D.</p>

<p>I love my 35/1.4, but probably wouldn't take it hiking since I'd already be taking taking my 24-105 and 70-200/4 IS.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"G Dan, my thinking is to go for a small flash and then 135/2 L in the next 12 months with the aim of having a small, portable dSLR kit. If not, for that kind of money I'm sure I could look at either a 17-40 L + flash / 85/1.8, and still have some change ... I have shot the 17-40 & a 24-105 + 20D on a hike in December last year and both proved to be very good."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em>If small and portable is your goal, the "rebel" style camera bodies make a lot of sense - they can produce image quality equal to that of the larger and more expensive models in almost all cases. However, to the extent that "small and portable"is a goal, I tend to think that you are barking up the wrong tree if you want to go all primes. (That is another interesting question to consider, too.)</p>

<p>If you want a dynamite small and light kit based on primes, consider lenses such as the EF 35mmf/2, EF 50mm f/1.4 (or f/1.8 for less money), EF 85mm f/1.8, and/or the 100mm non-L prime. Every one of these lenses is more than up to shooting handheld and I use some of them for high quality landscape shooting from a tripod.</p>

<p>Frankly, it is pretty much impossible for me to see how getting a very expensive and bulky/heavy 35mm f/1.4 L prime gets you to the place you say you are aiming to go. If you are imagining that you are going to produce remarkably better hand held photographs on your crop sensor body using the 35mm f/1.4L rather than the non-L 35mm f/2, I think you might want to do a bit of a reality check here. In a room full of large prints produced by the two lenses, it would be virtually impossible for you to determine which were made with which lens.</p>

<p>And how about comparing having only the 35mm f/1.4 to having the 35mm f/2, the 50mm f/1.8, and the 85mm f/1.8? With money left over.</p>

<p>Have you considered the utility and incredible flexibility and excellent image quality of the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>By the way, "best" body and "best" lens is not always equivalent to "most expensive" body or lens, not is an L lens always the automatic "best" choice. The real question comes down to "best for what and in what circumstances?". For example, there are a number of 50mm prime lenses from Canon: f/1.2 L, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.5 macro. Which is best? If you are thinking that the f/1.2 L must be "best" already, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a few situations it might be, but in others it would be an "inferior" lens for the purpose the photographer had in mind. Clearly, the macro would be better for macro work. But beyond that, for "street photography," the large and cumbersome (and not terribly fast to focus) L lens would be less useful than the f/1.4 non-L lens, and it would not likely produce a higher quality body of work either. </p>

[moi1]

<p>I have had the D300 for a year and a half and been everywhere with it and I can't believe that anyone would think that it's too heavy of a system for what it can do...I did the Appalachian trail with a D200 and they are both about the same weight...</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I have the EF 35 2.0 and it's a jim dandy optic: sharp, tiny, light and fast. Sure the AF motor says "shiiiiiiiiiiit" every time it goes, but it's pianissimo indoors and inaudible on city streets. I thought about upgrading to the 35 1.4L but, after handling one, decided the extra pound of weight wasn't worth the small increase in aperture and IQ (not to mention another fist full of benjamins).</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>I use the 24 2.8 and the 85 1.8 primes on my 450D. The 24 is just fine though it is a little wide for normal. It is light weight and the "noise" is there but minimal. The IQ is wonderful, especially stopped down a little. The 85 is more than wonderful and makes me wonder how one could outdo that lens. I don't have a 50 prime, so can't speak to that one.<br>

I do hope to add the 50 1.8 in the next year or so, though I am strongly considering the 50 2.5.<br>

The 450D with a few of the small non-L primes is a lightweight kit. However, I have read somewhere that the Tamron 17-50 2.8 eliminates the need for any of the Canon 2.8 primes in that focal length. So, it may be worth considering the Tamron 17-50 if 2.8 is fast enough for you.<br>

I believe at one point Brad shot with the 450D and the Tamron 17-50 2.8, so perhaps he can share with you how he liked the combo and how it compares to the kit he uses now.<br>

Anyway, for a light Rebel body, I think the 450D is sufficient. I've been shooting with it for 3 years and haven't needed more, shooting as a hobby. I haven't printed larger than 8"x12" and I am very satisfied with the results at that size.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sorry if this is a repeat, but my eyes glazed over somewhere on the way to the bottom. In the Canon line, just be aware that there are two closely related, but distinct "operating systems" - one is the one LCD screen - one wheel system of the xxxD/Rebel cameras and the other is the two-LCD and two-wheel system used on the professional and semi-pro bodies like the xxD (e.g, 40D), the 7 and 5D and so on.<br>

You do get the smallness you want in the "Rebel" control system, but many of us who use both prefer the models like the 40D. In fact, I often do use my 400D/XTi with a 35mm f/2 lens as a lightweight, small solution for "snapshotting"</p>

[kellyway]

Your 35 L must be almost as heavy as the d300 lol

[crappystuffs]

<p>If you can consider buying a 600D, I suggest you take a look at 550D as well.<br>

n.b.<br>

You could save some money if you also consider third party flash unit like the Nissin Di866 or Di622 ii.</p>

[wmervine]

<p>Russ, just to quantify, what would switching to Canon gain you aside from the 35 1.4 ? To go to a smaller body, the D3100 is a pretty good option, or even consider the D5100 when it hits the shelves. I know from experience that either trading in or selling your gear second hand you lose alot in the process, especially here in SA. Your 35 1.8 AF-S is a very highly regarded lens in it's own right. Is the L that much better?<br>

I must say though, it's quite ironic I sold my 500D earlier this year as I found it too small and not comfortable. Now I'm shopping for a 2nd hand D300.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, I thought the idea was to combine the best lens with the best body one can afford?<P>

 

Why do you need to have the "best" lens?<P>

 

My friend Travis and I both shoot and post to a popular San Francisco photoblog. I shoot exclusively with a

35/1.4. He likes to go lighter and shoots exclusively with a 35/2.0. The camera body is the same in both cases.<P>

 

Here's <a href= "http://allcitysf.com/author/brad/">my photostream</a>. And <a href=

"http://allcitysf.com/author/travis/">here's Travis'</a>.<P>

 

I'd be shocked if you could tell much difference based on the lens.

[israel1]

<p>Evryone, thanks for your comments.<br>

<br />Pascal, if I take my camera out I almost always have my netbook with me in the back of my bag (kata R-101) + other stuff for a daytrip, and as a result prefer to take my G9 than the D300.<br>

<br />Compared to a D40 its very OTT.</p>

<p>That said, everyone on this thread who has the 35 L has pointed out it would negate any weight advantage I would gain by switching to a smaller body so it would not be the route to take. Esp if the L IQ gain is minimal at best when comparing to prints made using a 35/2. I will make a decision once Im back in Johannesburg at the end of the month.</p>

[kellyway]

Hi Russ, the D300 allows for the use of non CPU lenses and the Nikon 35 1.4 ais is a great lens built like a tank

super sharp and has the added bonus of being manual focus! It is also light...

[israel1]

<p>Hi Kelly.</p>

<p>When I traded up for the D300 I believed it was the way to go. I never worried about the weight of my 35/1.8 DX when it was attached to my D40 and consequently my EXIF data shows the majority of my photos were taken with that lens.</p>

<p>I did take the trouble to handling a D3100 next to a D40 the other day and didn't like the grip of the former, so I won't be going that route. Im meeting with a friend tomorrow who shoots a D90, and Im keen to try that out.</p>

<p>What else have I tried towards this route?</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>450D + 18-55 IS </strong>lens. I found it to be very noisy at ISO 1600 but the body felt great and the images in good light were OK, perhaps a bit plastic-y...</li>

<li><strong>20D & 24-105 L</strong>. Belonged to a fellow hiker - we took turns with each other's gear along the trail - and the images I took are sharp and contrasty. </li>

<li><strong>30D + 17-40L </strong>&<strong> 18-135 IS</strong>. All used at a camera store in Jerusalem. The lil L zoom is a really nifty lens. Compared to the 18-135 IS, the size of the 17-40 L is more than acceptable. </li>

<li><strong>400D + 17-85 IS</strong>. I took a few shots of that setup inside a pawnshop and really liked the way it all felt like an extension of my hand. At ISO 1600 the images were fine.</li>

</ul>

<p><br />Anyway, when I get back from my current busines trip I lookforward to going into Outdoor Photo in Pretoria and saying "show me a 35 L on a XX0D and a 35/2 and 17-55 IS - just for kicks!"</p>