Making a need-based camera+lenses system...

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>My work is no wedding, studio, people, news and sports, portraits than hobby. No much of birds or animals even.<br>

I am serious on travel, landscapes, nature, art copying+enlargement printing, sculpture, archaeological, temple art etc.<br>

Camera: Body: 5d Mark2.<br>

Lens: 1) 50mm f/1.4 (copying)<br>

2) 70-200mm f/4L IS<br>

3) 24-105mm f/4L IS<br>

1. Is the above ok for my requirements?<br>

2. Can I eliminate any one out of 2 and 3 lenses? (In other words has 70-200 enough/minimum wide angle feature to eliminate 24-105? I know for certain 24-105 cannot stand with 70-200 in many other quality aspects)<br>

Thanks in advance...</p>

[mike dixon]

The Canon 50/1.4 is not suitable for copy work. It has very-noticeable distortion--straight lines near the edge of the frame will appear somewhat curved. The 50/2.5 macro would be a much better choice.

[jaydesi]

<p>The 70-200 is not likely to be wide enough to permit you to sell the 24-105, especially for landscapes. The quality of the 24-105 is just fine.</p>

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>Thanks.<br>

What about my other questions, please...</p>

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>That means I have to buy both. (I am yet to buy lenses).<br>

I thought I can save some money.<br>

What about if I keep only 24-105, leaving 70-200?</p>

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>I mean, how far 24-105 a telephoto zoom, at least to start with?<br>

For my work, is 'telephoto' feature a must other than hobby purpose?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>So much of this depends on your personal style of photographing. You will want, as someone above remarked, a macro lens for art copying because they have more of a flat field. You may be able to get by with only a 24-105 for the rest. If you can't, then you can buy a 70-200/4. You mention landscapes, so you should be budgeting for a good tripod, too.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It's kind of hard to judge it on your behalf - everybody has his/her own vision, style and preferences.<br>

I'd recommend going to a store that has these lenses and see for yourself, so you get an idea how little wide angle 70mm is and how little tele 105mm is. If you have no previous experience with a DSLR or SLR, this is the only real way to get an idea of what's what.<br>

If that's difficult, then I'd recommend what Luis wrote, start with the 24-105 (and the short macro lens for reproductions), and then check if the reach of a 70-200 is missing for you.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I agree about focal lengths. I have to translate them because I use a crop sensor, but on your camera, 24-105 is a pretty standard walk-around lens. I would start with something in that range and then see if your style of shooting requires wider or longer.</p>

<p>Please don't take offense, but some unsolicited advice: if you are enough of a beginner that you don't yet understand what these focal lengths do--e.g., not yet realizing that 70 mm is longer than normal, not wide--you probably do not need to spend the money for top-shelf professional lenses. You can buy very good lenses in most ranges for less, using your money to get a wider range of lenses as your experience shows you what you want. then when you have enough experience to know when the improvements in an L level lens will pay off, you can trade up to one. In the meantime, you will be able to get a wider array of equipment and therefore gain more experience.</p>

<p>For example, if you take a look at my flower macros here http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Flowers/Flowers-and-mushrooms/5909118_4XFdxt#1028920927_vQHgM, see if you can tell without hitting the information button which were taken with my L-level macro lens and which with my non-L, which cost about half as much. I would not be able to tell if I did not know the answer.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>The 24-105 is a good beginning. You'll soon find out if you need a longer focal length for architectural and temple details. While the 50/1.4 is excellent for low light work, it is not good at all for copying.</p>

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>Still I couldnt zoom in on a need based system:Travel, landscapes, nature, art copying+enlargement printing, sculpture, archaeological, temple art etc.<br>

I am buying 50/2.5 for sure: Copying is covered. For landscape amd general photography i need a wide or even an Ultra-wide. Anything better than 24-105 ??<br>

Also need a telephoto for travel, nature, archaeological, temple art etc.<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/?tag=dpnotes-20">How is EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ? It is cheaper but no IS. Anything better at budget ?<br /></a></p>

[William Michael]

<p>If I were making a needs based kit based on my 5DMkII specifically for: <em>travel, landscapes, nature, art copying enlargement printing, sculpture, archæological, temple art etc</em>. and I were <strong><em>concerned about the quality aspects</em> </strong>as indicated here:<br>

<em>“I know for certain 24-105 cannot stand with 70-200 in many other quality aspects”</em><br /><br /></p>

<p>I understand this is the beginner section, but to answer the question sincerley, I would be concentrating on four Prime Lenses here:</p>

<p><strong>50/2.5</strong> – copying / standard lens for all work / close up lens for art, sculpture and archaeological detail /all other close up detail shots.</p>

<p><strong>TSE- 24F/3.5L</strong> or <strong>TSE-17F/4L</strong> - specialist landscape and wide lens; specialist lens for indoors temples architecture / archæology etc. /general wide lens (though manual focus) – choice depends on precise needs.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>EF135F/2</strong> – Landscape / Travel and Nature - close proximity shooting<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>EF300F/4IS</strong> Landscape /Travel and Nature mid-distance shooting - not too heavy and has IS</p>

<p>Additions:<br>

<strong>x1.4MkII tele-extender</strong> (or MkIII) tele-extender providing equivalent additions of tele lenses: 189F/2.8 and 480F/5.6IS<br>

<strong>12mm 20mm 36mm Extension Tubes</strong></p>

<p>Maybes:<br>

<strong>EF35F/1.4L </strong> and / or <strong>EF85/1.8</strong> – (maybe?) good medium wide and short telephoto combinations and both fast lenses – useful where shooting in available light is necessary – depends on precise needs – the <strong>EF35/2</strong> has to be in consideration also, especially if lightweight and small and stealth is necessary.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>What I see not mentioned is lighting: you might have that under control but just mentioning.<br>

When I think: archæology, temple art, sculpture . . . (and travelling) I am thinking two 580MkII and some quick and efficient light -weight flash modifiers and using off camera flash.</p>

<p>And a really good, stable light weight tripod for the flash work, copying work and for the landscape work, also. </p>

<p>WW<br>

<br>

<br /><br /></p>

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>Thank you very much William !<br>

Your list is wholesome.<br>

While the list of lenses is essential for the pro-work; keeping it my wishlist, is it possible to advise a pruned list with bare essentials, covering my needs for first one year, as a 'Starter-kit' for me the beginner to be experienced to be aware of need of additional lenses?<br>

1. TSE-17F/4L: Is little expensive.<br>

2. How do you compare TSE- 24F/3.5L with EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM or the all-rounder EF 24-105 4l ? (The later has IS and the TS-E is open to elements). Your input is valuable here...<br>

3. If EF300F/4IS is there why extenders?<br>

Please be patient, beginner-student I am ...<br>

Thanks in advance.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“While the list of lenses is essential for the pro-work; keeping it my wishlist<strong><em>, is it possible to advise a pruned list with bare essentials</em></strong>, covering my needs for first one year, as a 'Starter-kit' for me the beginner to be experienced to be aware of need of additional lenses? . . . Please be patient, beginner-student I am ...”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I understand you are a beginner, and that is why I answered the way I did, please let me explain.<br>

You asked a question and it occurs to me what you wanted as an answer was for a group of experienced people to just give you a list of lenses which you could then go out and buy:<br>

– it doesn’t work like that.</p>

<p>Your question and your intent to make a “needs based kit” is a very good question and a very good intent, but, with no disrespect, the fact is - that you are beginning:<br>

-<strong> there are many things which you do not know.</strong> Obviously that is why you are asking questions which is good.<br>

But the more important consideration is:<br>

<em>- that <strong>some of the things you do not know: is what you do not know.</strong></em></p>

<p>In my opinion you are jumping ahead, too quickly.<br>

For example, if you had very little idea about chess and went to a chess master and asked: “Please show me how to solve this problem, it is mate in seven moves”<br>

Now if you had very little idea about the game of chess, it is likely that the chess master would first show you how each piece can move, the idea of the game and some simple strategies . . .</p>

<p>Similarly, your original question is actually quite specific: and I stress a really good question and has good intent as you seek to be prudent and specify the gear you want based upon the outcomes and the subjects you want to photograph and you mention high quality and mention a couple of very fine lenses.<br>

But your question also shows that you are inexperienced and because of that inexperience, although you have a rough idea of what you want to photograph, you do not know a lot about the details and the intricacies of actually DOING that Photography – and it is only by the DOING that you will then have the experience to learn more of the things which at this time you do not know and then be able to ask better questions to get to your final goal.</p>

<p>I understand that you do not want to waste money and I also understand that you are seeking high quality equipment to give yourself every opportunity to make high quality photographs, so what I would suggest to you is that the very best idea, for you, is to buy a very good quality “fast” (that means big aperture) “standard zoom lens” (“standard zoom” means a zoom with a focal length range - across the middle range, from a bit wide to a bit telephoto).<br>

Now the first Canon lens which comes to my mind is the EF24 to 70F/2.8L USM.<br>

The EF24 to 105F/4L USM is also another lens for you to consider.<br>

Now there are many, many threads in the Canon EOS Forum here comparing those two lenses – so research that if you wish.<br>

<br>

The next item I suggest you consider is a very stable good quality tripod a three way head and a remote release, for the 5DMkII.<br>

Now with that lens and the 5DMkII and the tripod and remote release, you have the tools be able to make many good quality photographs in mostly all the areas you mention: there will be some limitations as no one lens is the answer to everything.</p>

<p>Then, after making about three or five thousand Photographs and making lots of mistakes, you will have a much more refined set of questions to ask and also be able to define your end goals much more clearly and specifically.<br>

And if you find that after using the 24 to 70 for several months that it is really not going to be a lens that will be in your final kit, there will be no great loss as it is very likely that (if you buy keenly) you will be able to sell that lens for a few hundred dollars less than the purchase price – over the period of several months that cost will reckon as about three take-away coffees each week, a small price for the experience.</p>

<p>You might note that many other responses are also suggesting you head in the same direction of just one, good quality standard zoom lens, to being.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>To answer your specific questions:<br>

<em>1. TSE-17F/4L: Is little expensive.</em><br>

Yes it is and so is the TS-E24F/3.5L and both might be a complete waste of money for you: because neither might suit the TYPE of Landscape Photography you might want to make.</p>

<p><em>2. How do you compare TSE- 24F/3.5L with EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM or the all-rounder </em><em>EF 24-105 4l ? (The later has IS and the TS-E is open to elements). Your input is valuable here...</em><br>

They are three completely different lenses; it is difficult, almost impossible for me to compare them – there are few comparisons with the three lenses – but there are many contrasts.<br>

The TS-E 24L is a specialist lens and it and any TS-E lens would very likely be a complete waste of money for you AT THIS TIME.<br>

Yes I know I put two TS-E lenses on MY list, in answer to your first question – but I guess you are beginning understand now that there are many things you do not know and that is precisely the reason that you should NOT go out and buy a lot of gear, at this point in time.<br>

The 16 to 35MkII is a superb Ultra Wide Angle lens and is a lens I use often (on a 5D, for Landscape Travel and Portraiture.<br>

The 24 to 105, is as mentioned above a “standard zoom lens” and is a lens which IMO you should be one of the two lenses you should be considering as your starting point.</p>

<p><em>3. If EF300F/4IS is there why extenders?</em><br>

I suggested that I would use the tele-extender in MY kit with the 135mm and the 300mm lenses to give me more reach for Travel and Nature photography.</p>

<p>*** </p>

<p>I understand that you might want all the answers packed neatly into a list of items, so you can get out and buy your whole camera bag and then begin travelling shooting: but unfortunately - it just doesn’t work like that.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>Thanks for the elaborate reply...<br>

I can read your mind: disgust on near foolish questions and the helplessness of teaching "everything A to Z" through a Forum post.<br>

But I am all ears, very patient. A novice has no options... Except asking, ferocious browsing/reading to learn to make least mistakes.<br>

Yeah, many say: "You jump into it after all, to practice it. Cant practice swimming on bank...". I can, but in that process I will end up wasting lot of money on costly glass.<br>

And if I jumped 2 months back I would have drowning now with a D90+few heavy-weight, costly lenses strapped on me !<br>

Earlier no .Net was available to yell for help to people sitting on the other side of glob, like a generous William W, hence they all left with sacks full of lenses in the 'swimming' process, which they do not touch once got the right lenses...<br>

My effort is to avoid as much "great lenses" possible to zero-in on the near-fittest one. I found every day I am saving $ 100 avoiding wrong glass and learning much of theory, THANKS ALL OF YOU...<br>

On my extensive study learned I need as much MP as possible to enlarge to 24x36 inches, thus zeroed in on Mk2, the cheapest-best FF. I know unless with fitting lens/lenses, Mk2 is helpless, hence my current yelling for 'The BEST (and cheapest)' possible hires lenses...<br>

I decided on 50mm f2.5 and 70-200 f/4L IS.<br>

Now the wrangling is going for a Wide Angle, between EF 16-35 f/2.8 L, Zeiss 18mm f/3.5, 21 f/2.8, EF 17-40/4L and TS-E 17-40/4L.<br>

Got some more time to teach me?</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>Disgust</em></strong> = (noun) strong disapproval or revulsion; impatience or severe irritation with situation or person or action.</p>

<p><strong>No! Not at all! </strong><br>

You read my mind incorrectly, on all counts.<br>

I thought: “<strong><em>passion”</em></strong> and “<strong><em>enthusiasm”</em></strong> and hopefully I responded accordingly with due diligence.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>My gut feel is the EF17 to 40F/4L is the answer for you at this time.</p>

<p><strong>Rationale: </strong></p>

<ul>

<li>Not as expensive as the 16 to 35/2.8 and very likely you will not use the extra aperture stop but will use the extra 5mm of Focal Length.</li>

<li>Not as complex or as specialist a lens as the TS-E 17F/4L and if you still want the TS-E17F/4 the 17 to 40 will be a good mate for it.</li>

</ul>

<p>Correct, you cannot practice swimming whilst standing on the bank.<br>

So get in and begin swimming.<br>

With those three lenses you have enough to make many mistakes, but more importantly, with your attitude and passion - <strong>you will learn much.</strong></p>

<p>Good Luck with your journey,</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

 

[sunny_alan_alan]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Disgust</em></strong> = (noun) strong disapproval or revulsion; impatience or severe irritation with situation or person or action.<br>

<strong>No! Not at all! </strong><br /> You read my mind incorrectly, on all counts.<br /> I thought: “<strong><em>passion”</em></strong> and “<strong><em>enthusiasm”</em></strong> and hopefully I responded accordingly with due diligence.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

But I didnt know 'Disgust' has such irritating connotations ! Yes, then I misjudged... Sorry, but I didnt intent.<br>

And I am happy: met a Pro, with unusual patience, passion and enthusiasm to newbies...<br>

Let me evaluate your suggestion.</p>

</blockquote>

[sunny_alan_alan]

<p>My gut feel is the EF17 to 40F/4L is the answer for you at this time.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

16 is much more wider than 17. Still you think 17-40 is apt? I am happy, this is cheap too.<br>

<strong>Rationale: </strong><br>

Not as expensive as the 16 to 35/2.8 and very likely you will not use the extra aperture stop but will use the extra 5mm of Focal Length.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

Why? Wont extra aperture useful for low light situation?<br>

Not as complex or as specialist a lens as the TS-E 17F/4L and if you still want the TS-E17F/4 the 17 to 40 will be a good mate for it.<br>

^^^^^^^<br>

Well, I dont think going for TSE now. WHAT DO YOU TOUCH the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5, 21 f/2.8? The "Help me help you"(send me $5) expert says Zeiss 21 f2.8 is the sharpest lens he ever seen.<br>

And I want a very sharp one to enlarge to 36x24 inch on canvas prints. And he is an expert not to be discounted just like that ! It is a German, legendary lens, and price is almost equal to a EF 16-35.<br>

What do you think?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Not understanding the precise meaning of words is of no matter.<br>

Do not worry and there is no need to apologize.<br>

<strong>I was just showing you that I understand you are passionate and want to do the best.</strong></p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I have not used either Zeiss lens, so I cannot comment on either first hand, but I have no reason to doubt they are both good lenses and I expect the 21F/2.8 to be the better of the two and if you do enough research and most of it says that both have better in IQ than the Canon zooms (17 to 40 and 16 to 35), then I would believe that also.</p>

<p>But a Prime lens will not be as flexible as a zoom lens – you need to weigh which is more important to you.<br>

And, if after you research and understand what the movements (tilt and shift) can provide for you and latter do buy the TS-E17F4L then I think having both a Zeiss Wide Prime and the TS-E is not keeping your bag light with a minimum number of lenses.</p>

<p>The 16 to 35 is one stop faster, yes and that will assist in low light, yes, and I bought that lens instead of the 17 to 40, primarily because of that one extra aperture stop.<br>

But I use my cameras hand held often – i.e. not using a tripod; I usually a shooting on the hop and not controlling the shot with precise longer (more than a few seconds) detailed planning; I usually need high shutter speeds to stop both camera shake and also subject movement; I use wide angle lenses for Portraiture and I do use large apertures for shallow depth of field; I do not often use Flash of other ancillary lighting – all these elements of MY photography appear to be the exact opposite of what you listed as your “needs”</p>

<p>So it is difficult for anyone else to MAKE the choice for you: and that is why I gave my opinion as to what I think is “in your best interests” – and what I mean by that is:<br>

<strong><em>“tools to for you to buy, to help you learn to understand what it is you really need, in the shortest possible time.” </em></strong></p>

<p>And that opinion, is also to buy not very many lenses and learn with those few lenses, first.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Bottom line answer for a wide lens:</p>

<ul>

<li>Understand the differences in flexibility between a zoom and a Prime.</li>

<li>I expect that either Ziess will be sharper than either zoom, <strong>I am not sure</strong>: seek reputable sources to find tests which show evidence.</li>

<li>If ultimately IQ sharpness is what you want then a Prime will most likely be your choice at the expense of the flexibility of the zoom. </li>

</ul>

<p>WW</p>