chris_laudermilk

IIRC it also has a faster max flash synch speed. It really boils down to some better integration with flash. If you need that get the ProTL, if not the Pro is otherwise the same. So far I don't miss the flash ability with my new-to-me Pro.

Both good choices. Just judging from your portfolio, it looks like the 70-200 is more along the lines of where you're going so far. It seems ultimately you want to have both--I can understand that, so do I. I happened to go the other way as a vacation and availability of loaner 70-200's made my choice a little easier.

Like others, I'd say look at what the lens does for you. Does it fit your needs? If so then consider it whether or not it has the magic "L" in the name and red ring around the front.

 

As for longevity, well, I too have a 50/1.8 Mk I (not sure of exactly how old it is, but we all know it's close to voting age at the youngest). It was purchased used and still functions perfectly. I have no doubt my one (currently) L lens will far outlast any of the rest of the gear, and probably me as well. It will hold it's resale value as well--not that I care, I bought it as a tool to use, not an investment to re-sell.

I'll add a second suggestion to take a look at Tokina's 12-24. IMHO, it's a better all-around package if that 10-12 range is not of vital importance. One very important aspect is price (at least inferred from your post)--it's about $200 less expensive. I have used both and much prefer the 12-24, better price, nicer build, same IQ.

 

I bought the UWA primarily for landscapes, but have had fun with candids up close (play with perspective distortion), and have found it useful in indoor candids where my 24-70 was a bit long.

I pretty much agree with Kelly & Thomas: "fine art" is whatever you define it to be.

 

More directly to your comments on the camera involved, you do realize the D2H is meant more for sports or other fast-action type shooting & is a 4.25MP sensor as opposed to the D2X which is 12MP? I think ANY other current DSLR will suit your wish for more detail better than the D2H.

 

With your wish for large prints, well the larger the "negative" whether film or digital the better. It just depends on how much money & hassle you are willing to deal with.

I'd keep the Mamiya and save up for the digital. What you get for the Mamiya won't get you very far into the DSLR setup; remember there's all the accessories including a powerful PC that go along with the body.

 

I actually have gone the other way--built a decent setup (still under construction) with a DSLR and added a Mamiya 645 rig since I could get if for so little; my entire Mamiya starter setup from KEH cost 1/3 what my 24-70 Canon lens did, and still less than the Tokina. I can add a complete lens lineup and a couple of backs and still be under the lens budget for the DSLR.

 

They are two different tools with different strengths & I use them in different situations. To me it's not an either/or choice, but complementary tools (e.g., use the big hammer to drive a 16d nail, and the small hammer to drive a finishing nail).

The standard PC Sync cable will work fine. That's why the 20D has that socket on it. I've been using the Calumet-branded versions of those strobes for a while now & it hasn't blown up yet. ;)

You have to give it a contrast edge to focus on. I regularly use AF in very low light (theater); I always use the center AF point and at least a fast zoom (f2.8 or better). It has to be nearly completely dark before I have to give up on AF completely.