jim_greer

I agree with Bernie West's comment. Even a serious hobbyist should be able to address many more 5D function choices than at present with the wasted "print" button and more than just one custom function mode. And what's this about being able to afford a 5D having something to do with owning one? If that were a valid argument, then we all would be driving 2004 Chevy Cobalts (4 wheels, 4 seats, a body, steering wheel, brakes, they're all there) because we aren't professional racers with the skills to fully employ the mechanical genius of more highly engineered vehicles. Let's not get off track here. The 5D is a wonderful box so long as you don't need a fast shoot rate, and a valid alternative for any serious photographer able to pay the fare. Canon should respond to this and make the relatively tiny changes for quick mirror lockup and other often-used adjustments.

Hey Duncan,

 

Thanks very much for taking the time. Your answers are both insightful and well expressed, and show a real understanding of the art. I'll be a regular follower of your site, and hope eventually to become a sharer when I reach a point of personal satisfaction with my work.

 

Again, thanks.

I also am very impressed with your site and work. You have what many photojournalists and us street shooters and wannabe street shooters (that's me in the latter category, not a personal put down, just honest humility) often lack -- the ability to catch interesting and dramatic composition along with a meaningful and edgy main subject. Would you mind a question or two. First, most of your shots seem to be of the variety where you're back a bit, not up close mixing the people environment. Much of what I read from photogs with seemingly impressive credentials (and good work to back them up) tells me to swallow my anxieties and get in there up close and personal, use short lenses (50s to avoid close-up facial distortion and maybe 35s and 24s where a wider scene with interesting foreground elements permit), and to strike conversations and cut right to the chase with a things like "really good looking hat, makes you really stand out, do you mind if I take your picture?" or "I'm enrolled in a photo workshop and generally am scared to death asking people I don't know if I can photograph them, and that's what I'm trying to do so would you mind?", etc. These same readings seem universally to say that using longer lenses to stand-out of the scene and shoot-in loses the personality and grit street shooting generally is all about. Yet here I look at your work and find a great deal to emulate, and it seems largely to fall in that latter category, standing back and shooting in. Would you mind saying a little about that (or if already in your site, sorry, didn't have the time at the moment to look through anything but the gallery)? Also, much of what I read and discuss on various forums speaks to using faster lenser for greater bokeh to pop the main subject (with examples to make the point, and often impressively so) as opposed to the highlight burning you seem to use so effective in achieving the same thing. Would you mind commenting on that? To me, your work truly is a model, and I thank you so much for sharing it.

The 5D has no real competition in price range and FF set up, and is in a higher end category (top-prosumer or low-pro, nobody seems to know). Because of these factors, it's guessed that its life cycle will be longer. Just makes sense that the highly competitive 30D category point, in both features and price, would see faster model changes. But then, who really knows outside of Canon's closed doors, and they're not talking.

Thanks for response, and of course, you're right, right, right -- with but one rejoinder -- that 10% is oh-so important if one is good enough to get the 90% anywhere near right. Let's face it, if weren't so frustrating, wouldn't be anywhere near so invigorating, stimulating, and just plain fun.

To the OP of this thread, I say thank you for letting me piggyback along. And to those answering my piggyback, I say thank you. I really thought I'd get lost at the bottom here, but not so.

 

I'm left here with a leaning that the 5D sensor pixels apparently are more capable than the more tightly packed smaller 30D sensor pixels. The more important thing I'm left with, however, is that other factors may decide the issue for each of us. Body heft I see as a toss up, as said, the 5D is only marginally larger (primarily I imagine because of the larger mirror and prism). So, setting aside for a moment the thought of going the EFS lens route, the question seems to come down to the 5D's pixel's ability to better gather light and handle noise (I imagine two edges of the same sword) and the FF body's ability to go wider. If always shooting with a lot of light, the former maybe isn't an absolute decider, but otherwise would seem to be very significant. As for the latter, Canon does have its EFS 10-22, so at least it's trying. The rest of the variables seem all to be equalizable (is that even a word?) by cropping to achieve longer apparent tele and effectively using only a lens' sweet spot (I think I'm right that all lenses have edge-nasties, even top quality Canon L's, but other poster may know a lot more about that than me). The poster that made the point in the 30D's favor about using crop lenses (Canon's EFs lenses) for 1.6 bodies makes a good point, this would seem to create a real total-package heft advantage for the 30D, and of course price heavily favors the 30D, especially with EFS lenses.

 

I guess a lot depends on what lies down the road: will we see more FF models which will better compete price-wise with 1.6 and possibly eventually lead to its demise, or will we see the kind of tech advances in crop that leads to a far more full line EFS lenses and more confidence that our investment there won't be wasted? Gotta live for now, though, so I guess you put down your dollars (or whatever) and take your chance.

I've read several times here and on other forums that cropping the same

Image from a 5D to 30D FOV to achieve a subject of equal size would result in an image of less pixels (seems mathematically correct considering the 5D's 12.8 vs the 30D's 8.2 mp sensors). This, along with the fact that the 30D reads only the sweet spot of the lens, thereby avoiding all the 5D lens-edge nasties, seems like a double-barrel argument in favor of the 30D. I've also read, however, that a 5D pixel is larger than a 30D pixel, and that the larger 5D pixel is

capable of higher level performance (mostly technically over my head,

but apparently has to do with relative blackness, whiteness, color intensity, sharpness, leakage, etc), thereby overcoming the "less pixels" disadvantage. The less techy of us can understand such factors as the 5D's somewhat heftier body mass, considerably brighter viewfinder, and considerably greater wide-angle capabilities, but what about this question of larger individual pixel size equating to greater pixel capability, and TO WHAT EXTENT does this truly overcome the "less pixels" argument?

 

I believe there are many on this forum at my tech level who would love to have this clarified. Thanks in advance for helping us out.

Didn't I read that at f/8 and above the AF feature doesn't work with the 1.4 extender, so this would make the 70-200 f/4 non-AF? Never used an extender so never thought about it, so probably a lame question. The 1.4 extender sounds like a good accessory, however, so a question I ought to resolve.

If you are looking for "travel" kit, I only can pass on my experience. I was fairly fixed on lenses, biggest body concerns were heft and swing weight, and in those respects the 5D and 30D did not feel to me all that different. The 24-105 shoots as a 38-168 on the 30D, so we're talking 38-168 vs 70-200 as between the two lenses on that body, and either way you're left with slowish f/4 max aperture. So if you are absolutely locked into budget, sounds like you have little choice than to go with the 30D, but I'd recommend the 24-105, give-up wider than 38 since would have to be really wide to crop to near 24 and that's probably expensive territory, and use saved money to add the plastic fantastic 50 f/1.8 (because so sharp and inexpensive) or more expensive 35 f/1.8 to have a relatively small bundle of quality speed at your beckon call. The alternative to all this, getting the full frame 5D but limiting yourself to 105 reach (no crop), for me just wouldn't fit the "travel" mode. True, you could crop all those 5D 105 shots to equal the 30D's 168 FOV (little different perspective, but that's life), and probably end up with equal or better sharpness and contrast, but is it worth all that, and does that give you the best carrying "travel value"?

 

In the longer view, I know I'd be happier with a proper working 5D (can you trust "used") coupled to the 70-200 (reviews seem to say a better overall quality lens), and then fill in with a 24 (since working as a true 24, not in terribly expensive range) and fast 35 or 50 (the 50 f/1.8 again being the low cost alternative), or possibly a 3x mid-wide to mid-tele zoom and still grab the 50 plastic fantastic for low light when you need it.

 

That latter kit may be a budget buster for now, but what will you say a year from now? Always a tough call.

Also don't understand your reference to D40 (or 40D or whatever). And if referring to new Nikon (or Canon body), how does that lens speed? sorry, I'm probably reading it wrong, but confused.

This is in response to Peter Dawdler (think spelling is right) comment above re: primes vs zooms. I am in position where I just made the change from film to digital, spent about 7k on equipment, returned what I'd bought (long story, not relevent to question here), so get to do it all over again. Actually, that's a good thing, cause never hurts to re-think the expenditure.

 

Major re-think is in just this topic, primes vs zooms. My initial kit was a 5D, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L, 35 f/1.4L, 70-200 f/4L IS plus 1.4 extender, and 100 f/2.8 macro, supplemented by an 85 f/1.8 already owned. Not all to be bought right away. I'll be starting with the 24-70, 70-200 and existing 85, but the rest I'd expect within a year or so. I'm a serious hobbyist, along a bit in age, so pampering myself for what presumably is my last radical photographic tidal change. Each of these lenses serves a purpose. I like natural light and on-location, so speed and bulk are considerations (e.g., fastest available wide zooms, a couple speed-demon primes, and giving in to f/4 instead of f/2.8 which, for 70-200, is just too much a brick for me). The macro, well, always can use for a macro, and this is a sweet one.

 

All that said, since having a second life here in buying this stuff, I'm seeing faster and less bulky possibilities in Canon's 24 f/1.4L and 35 f/1.4L, in place of the 16-35 and 24-70 zooms. This leaves me with real quality speed at 24, 35, and my existing 85 (not an L, but fine lens), instead of slower and possibly lower quality (depending whom one listens to) 2-lens zoom 16-70, at lower price (maybe use $$$ to fill in with 135 f/2L) and much less bulk, at the compromise loss, of course, of all those in-between FLs and nominal lens changes. Rest of kit would remain the same.

 

Obviously a quandary. Appreciate any comments. Should I put this out as a separate thread so others can see? Thanks for the time.

Hate to sound like a dunce, but followed the link, and don't see how to download. Help, please.

To John Bellenis, what specifically are you referring to when you say the 24-70 L is "not as sexy or feature packed as the newer" 24-105 L IS? Are you referring here just to the 24-105's longer reach and IS, or is there an "older" version 24-105 that somehow is lacking? The word "newer" I guess is what's confusing me.

Thanks to you all, great thoughts here. You're obviously having as much fun investing my $$$ as I am.

 

Based on responses here and on other forums, I think I've found a blind spot in my thinking that makes the whole lens choice task easier. Bless the internet, what did we ever do without all this expert communication? Much as I hate to admit it, even after all my study and thought and pestering sales people to hand over samples I could fiddle with, I failed to give proper credence to the 5D's ability to step-up several levels in ISO without significant noise. For a guy who never shot film at over 100, those represent huge speed advantages. Knew about it, just didn't give it enough importance. So with that now fully considered, I'm at a much better place to resolve the speed vs. heft question, i.e. the f/2.8 vs. f/4 question. I certainly prefer lighter and smaller (duh!), and the bucks can be well applied elsewhere, and for really good bokeh I'll be relying on my existing 85 1.8 and planned standard 1.4 anyway. So my focus has shifted some, away from sheer speed, to questioning what will make the highest quality and fastest/widest/longest/lightest reasonably manageable walk-around kit (the "yes", "yes", "yes" discussion earlier in this thread). Toward that end, I'm now leaning toward a two-lens zoom solution, 24-105 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/4 L IS, supplemented by a fast standard, 35 f/1.4 L (or possibly less exciting 50 f/1.4). My existing 85 f/1.8 and planned 100 macro, plus maybe a future wider prime (or 16-35 II zoom) and longer prime (or 100-400 zoom) will fill the ranks, but stay behind in terms of a regular walk-around kit.

 

A better starting point than all that 2.8 mass I originally had listed? You think? All comments welcome ...

I guess I'd be considered an advanced hobbyist. I put my Canon EOS Elan IIe on

the shelf two years ago with purchase of my first digital P&S (Sony W-1), and

have loved the digital experience ever since. Been saving for jump to DSLR, and

finally bought Canon EOS 5D body yesterday. I doubt I'll ever second guess that

decision, but can see lots of possibility for buyers remorse in lens choices.

My only quality carryforward is an EF 85mm f/1.8, which I know I'll remain happy

with.

 

What kind of shooting do I do? Almost anything. I like wide angle scenics with

up-close subjects and/or framing, portraitures with smooth bokeh, long shots

compressing roof tops and hills and whatever, people candids (city, town, sea

shore, at work, at play, you name it), almost any little gem that yells macro,

morning and evening light, long exposures, slow flash with ambient-lit

backgrounds. Mostly I like natural light (so lens speed is a priority), and

greatly prefer on-location vs. studio. Sure I've left some things out, but

basically same problem as most of you, my photographic taste is all over the place.

 

Personal talent and knowledge? Well, been told I have a pretty good eye. I've

entered some B&W work in contests over the past 40 years, and even won a few.

I've done some B&W film darkroom work over that time so learned a lot about the

process. Already studying digital darkroom (primarily Kelby's "CS2" and Grey's

"Color Confidence") and practicing CS2 on a friend's computer with generously

loaned RAW files, and loving it. Plan to purchase CS3 as soon as released.

Finally, I?ve been following this and other forums religiously to reason through

the jump from SLR to DSLR.

 

All that said, we learn by doing, and till I put my lens dollars on the line and

live for a while with lenses bought (unfortunately for me that means longer than

any normal return period), there's really no way to know how badly I'll

screw-up, the old "buyer's remorse" syndrome. I know lens choice is a

continuing thing, been there and done that during my film years, and to some

extent there's a guaranteed amount of screw-up (that little pixy on your

shoulder saying "what if"). Just trying here and on other forums to pinch some

minds and maybe soften the inevitable blow.

 

As a starting point, I'm limiting my selections to Canon (personal taste).

Considering my age (no spring chicken) this will in all likelihood be my last

major photographic tide change, so I'm prepared to indulge myself (already

having bought the 5D body pretty well puts an exclamation point on that!) Sooo,

here's where my thinking is at: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, either EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

IS or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS (probably the former for faster speed), EF

50mm f/1.4 or EF 50mm f/1.2 L (probably the former, but kind of a toss-up), EF

100mm f/2.8 macro. To this I would consider eventually possibly adding a wider

f/2.8 prime (or EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L) and a longer f/4 IS prime, but that's for

later consideration. Leaving out those latter two eventual possibilities, and

including the 85 already owned, that's five lenses, a pretty full bag. I don't

like lugging and changing any more than anyone else, but this seems to me a

pretty reasonable starting point. I figure the 24-70 and 70-200 as my

walk-around tandem (probably the 24-70 alone if not carrying a bag), with the

fast 50 always there and available. The others are for more targeted

situations, so in the normal course I'd leave them behind, although would hate

to be without the macro when some out-of-the-blue opportunity suggests itself,

which it often does, so maybe the 100 becomes a walk-around component as well.

 

For what it's worth, I looked at the 24-85 and 28-105 EF alternatives in place

of the 24-70, but besides unwanted speed loss, reviews seem to favor the 24-70

over the former, and wide-angle limitation defeats the latter.

 

As for herself and kids and grandkids, still have my little digital P&S for

family get-togethers and vacations, so no conflict with DSLR walk-around mass

where they?re involved.

 

Sorry for this being so long, but figured I'd answer questions before asked.

I?ll not be buying all at once, plan to start with the 24-70 and 100 macro, and

build from there, beginning with the 70-200. Be brutal in your responses. That

way I?ll know I?ve walked on fire in arriving at conclusions, making the

inevitable ?what if? easier to shoulder. Thanks in advance for taking the time.

I'm in the pleasant throes of learning Photoshop. Just finished and already

re-reading Tim Grey's "Color Confidence", wonderfully written tomb, and hacking

my way through an initial CS2 guidebook. Anyway, probably a very rookie

question -- can I leave my polarizing filter at home now that I can photoshop

about any sky hue I want? I know there are other uses for polarizers, but seems

that's about all I've ever used one for. Thanks for the help.

I'm in process of the digital/film changeover, and am wondering if reciprocity

at very slow shutter speeds is the same kind of problem with digital as it was

with film? The only threads I find on this have to do with film, so my guess is

it's not a digital phenomenon, but thought it best to ask. Thanks for any

assist on this.

This may sound a little flaky, but possibly provides some insight. I was in a big-box retailer the other day where both 30D and 5D are displayed, and was talking with their supposed photography guru on just this point, successors to either model. He quietly pointed out a little "c" on the 5D price sign, which he said meant a closeout was coming, and that generally that means a new model. I imagine it also could mean the store was dropping that model, possibly as beyond the tech level it normally handles, but just speculation. Anyone else seen or heard anything along these lines?

I agree that for candid, you can't beat zoom. Heavier and more expensive, but only when you don't consider you'd be buying three lenses minimum to replace any decent zoom range. Me, I have the 85mm 1.8 prime, carryover from film days, and love it for posed work, but troublesome for candids. If you're starting from scratch and have both needs, seems either a 35-105 or 70-200 range would do the job, then just a matter of weighing cost against quality. If you can do an L IS, more power to you, if not, considering the candid need, I'd think the IS would be more important than the L because of quick grabs, but others would disagree. The L is the big cost designation, then the IS. Canon does make some pretty-close-to L lenses, without the weather sealing (so stay out of the sand and rain), but good optics. Read reviews day and night and you'll start to get a feel for the better non-Ls, and that may be a help. Again, all cost dependent. Go as high as you can with the dollars, plus the 50 1.8 just because it's soooo light and soooo inexpensive, and you'll get plenty of good shots. All debatable, and I expect you'll see different opinions on everything said here. Good luck.

This may sound a little silly, especially to those who know me personally,

because I wander a lot, but never have asked these questions. Actually two

strings here: City shooting in general, and country excursions within 100 mile

round trip of Chicago northern suburbs. The latter is covered first.

 

To set the scene, I?m a hobbyist just getting back into serious SLR work with

DSLR. Did film for decades, then 2 years ago bought an advanced digital P&S,

and haven?t touched my film bag since. I understand that?s not an unusual

scenario. Anyway, used to travel a lot and have lived in some fairly photogenic

places, but now am more staid, live in the Chicago northern burbs, and frankly

don't find too much photographically to crow about.

 

Sure, there are the city?s structure and life (but for the really in-your-face

stuff I'd have to hire a bodyguard), and railroad infrastructure (but straight

as an arrow, with interesting yards and edifices inaccessible), forest preserves

and lagoons (but can find less gentrified ones anywhere further out), plenty of

experienced and good looking models (but "herself" might not be happy about

that), lots of industry (again, inaccessible) etc. And there are botanical

gardens, farmers markets, art fairs, downtown cityscapes, great neighborhood

ethnicity, Lake Michigan sunrises (through largely uninteresting skies), Lincoln

Park skaters and picnickers and bikers, etc. Bottom line: yes, there's a lot of

stuff; no, you either can't get to a lot of it or wouldn't take the risk; and

overall, topographically or historically interesting and quaint it ain?t! And

accessible and unhurried and safe and topographically and historically

interesting and quaint all are things I kind of like.

 

So I?m looking for suggested 100 mile round-trip excursions (give or take) north

and west of here. Maybe to what?s left of old worn out Illinois and Wisconsin

towns (Racine?s been pretty much rebuilt, and even St. Charles and Fox Lake are

pretty well developed now), old farm structures and equipment, interesting and

accessible railroad interchanges and structures (other than Union, not very

quaint, being a museum and all), scenic country roads and vales, even

mini-topographical inspirations like Kettle Moraine and Starved Rock (the Dells

is too far off), etc.

 

And as long as on the subject of farms, any suggestions on how to get inside,

just knock on the door and ask, offer to pay, what? Same applies to city street

people, outdoor chess players, ethnic gatherings, etc. Wandering around with

some pretty expensive equipment here, so not looking to walk into any meat

grinders. Got kicked out for not knowing the protocol once at old Preservation

Hall in New Orleans, way back when patrons sat on old mattresses lining the

walls. Ended up apologetically buying my way back in and got some good

non-flash B&Ws with my trusty Miranda T2 (or was it a Konica Autoreflex, don?t

remember exactly) coupled to a Vivitar Verifocal 1.8 short zoom (went up maybe

to 80mm, great for its time), but an embarrassment I?d rather not repeat. And

sure not again to risk my equipment.

 

I know, being a bit of a wimp, a city like Chicago right at my doorstep and I'm

crying arid. But think about it, and this is where the second string to this

post comes in. Outside

Was just wandering through forum topics, and looked here to see what else had been added, and ran across big error in what I last posted. I said there that Canon crop lenses (EF-S line) were marked with TRUE focal length designations. Not true, don't know what I was thinking. Because Canon models presently employ three different sensor sizes (I think just three: full, 1.3 and 1.6), all its lenses are designated focal lengths "equivalent to full frame". In other words, the focal lengths designated on EF-S lenses are BEFORE crop factor. Seems illogical, EF-S lenses physically won't even mount on a full frame body, but that's what Canon does, apparently so that customers have a common point of reference for all their lenses regardless of sensor size. Therefore, contrary to what I wrote before, an EF-S 17 ACTUALLY IS a 27 on a 1.6 crop box, the only box it fits (Rebel, 20D, 30D). Sorry for the confusion, and if I'm still saying it wrong, please somebody straighten me out. Other than that, think all my comments hold true regarding lenses seemingly suitable to the shooting environment and style you described.

Just 4 points. First, to answer your question, a "prime" lens is what you have now on your 55, a non-zoom lens. So the wide angle prime I suggested, somewhere between 17 and 24mm cropped, mounts in place of your 50, not onto it.

 

Second, some of the other posters infer that a lens made for a crop camera does NOT shoot at its marked focal length (I think just the way they wrote it, don't think they really meant that, just important you not be confused). So to make sure you have it straight, a lens made specifically for a crop camera, like any Canon EF-s or probably the 55 that came with your Rebel (if the standard kit lens), is sized so the circle of vision just covers all edges of the crop sensor (the mirror, BTW, also is cropped for most crop boxes, sized to just fit the crop circle of vision of a crop lens, one reason a crop box is smaller than a full frame box), so a crop lens marked 17mm really sees at 17, and a 300 really sees at 300, etc. A full frame lens meant for a full frame sensor will fit on a crop box, but the larger circle of vision way exceeds the edges of the crop sensor, thereby requiring mathematical application of the 1.6 (or whatever) crop factor to know effectively what central portion of the full frame circle of vision the crop sensor sees (in effect, like a crop and enlarge in a film darkroom or digital editor, not greater magnification, nothing's for free, just crop and enlarge), so on a 1.6 crop box a FF 17 looks like a 27, and a 300 looks like a 480, etc, capturing just the central portion of the FF lens' circle of vision.

 

Third, I read what another poster said about a 45 serving his scenic needs, and might work great for him, but not my taste, and notice that no other poster here suggests 45 as near adequate. With a 45, IMHO you get nowhere near enough DOF, can't stick the main subject dramatically large and close, while having infinity also in sharp focus to catch full detail of that long, wide scenic sweep way beyond. What you'll get with a 45 is a somewhat large/small main subject, further away from the camera because of decreased DOF relative to a wider lens, coupled with a narrower and closer looking background mountain view. Not that that's right or wrong, just to me kind of ordinary and boring, question of taste. You'll know the real thing when you see it and make your own judgement.

 

Finally, fourth, sorry, but I haven't kept up with the reviews of primes. Ask questions specific to wide primes on this or other of the available forums and you'll get many hopefully-learned responses.

 

Focal length and related DOF have to be played with to be really appreciated. You won't get a chance, though, without an adequately wide lens (after crop) and/or fast apertures (possibly 2.8, most certainly 1.8 or better).

 

Again, good luck and good tripping.

I'm no pro, but based on my similar experience, wide angle capability is what you want to catch the human element or flower fields or rocks/streams up front, large and distinct, while the grandeur of the mountains sweeps wide and deep beyond, all in sharp focus and incredibly moving. Get low to the ground for the non-people shots, often gives unusually creative and very effective perspective.

 

I'm not sure what you'll do with the mentioned zoom reach of 105. Seems betwixt and between, way too short to come anywhere near getting that mountain goat or big-horned ram way out there, and your existing 50 already is adequate for individual or group portrait type settings. Unless you have other main objectives in mind, seems that a zoom to 105 would add only unwanted bulk. I also question whether the 28 is adequately wide, it's only a mid-wide angle, unable to catch the real sweep of what you've described, and in my mind a little boring. Probably better for a daily all-around zoom in the environment you describe might be a 24 or wider (watching out for distortion, etc if not top-quality glass) to maybe 70, somewhere in that range, probably smaller than the 28-105, and allows you to leave your 50 at home (unless it's really fast for those lower light opportunities regardless of reach).

 

In all of this you obviously have to watch out for crop. Not sure when you talk of a 28-105 if you're talking crop or full frame measures, but crop are the measures you're stuck with in your Rebel, so that's what I'm referring to in suggested measures. So if that 28-105 you envision is full frame (any Canon EF), you have to multiply focal lengths by 1.6 (I think that's the Rebel factor), so the 28 effectively becomes a 45, which would be totally inadequate for the wides you're trying to get.

 

On another track, you might consider, instead of a wide zoom, a wide prime that crops to a 24 or lower as supplement to your 50mm, PLUS maybe even a 70-200 or your envisioned 75-300 on top of that (re the 70-200, there are a huge number out there in many price ranges, and a smaller and possibly faster package than the 70-300), which gives you a full range of coverage for all kinds of shooting. Yes, three lenses instead of two, but the wide prime I suggest and your current 50 are pretty small, so all three together (especially with the 70-200 instead of the 75-300) are pretty close in lug-value to the two-lens set-up you're currently considering. Also, other things being equal, primes generally produce higher quality images than zooms (much less electro/mechanical and optical complication) and cost less. For what you'd save, maybe take the wide prime to a faster speed, maybe 2.8 or better. Would of course increase size, but still a prtetty convenient package, and far more capable in terms of handling low light and playing with DOF.

 

Whatever lenses you use, the scenes you describe often can be thought-out set-ups in advance, so a tripod would prove an asset, especially if taking advantage of that beautiful early-morning and coming-evening light undoubtedly available in large doses at that beautiful place you're going. That environment's also tailor made for fill flash for the up-front subject coupled with longer shutter speeds for gathering background ambient light, another instance where a tripod could come into important play. And finally, lock in focus and move your subject off center, frame the shots where foliage is involved, and results will take your breath away.

 

Good luck, and good tripping.

Response to Dan Mitchell:

 

I went back and looked, don't mean to be making this stuff up. Paul G wrote on Mar 6: "However, the full frame makes lenses their normal length. So my 300mm & 400mm lenses are just 300 & 400. For bird photography the 1.6 crop camera comes in handy. Those same lenses become 480 & 640 on the 1.6 crop body. That is useful for shooting small birds."

 

So think I had it right. Or am I missing something?

 

I did make an "oops", however, when I said a full frame tele's sweet spot being all that is captured on a crop sensor wasn't a plus. Thinking it through, seems like that is a plus, isn't it? A crop lens' FULL circle of vision is captured, sweet spot and edge, so those common little edge nasties come into play. Think that's right. Anyway, just trying to stay out of the goop. And doesn't change where I come out on the question. IMHO, the weight, length, and cost disadvantages more than offset that one plus of using full frame vs. crop teles on crop boxes, assuming of course that one agrees that crop picture quality still is excellent, and that crop sensors will be around a while. The first is subjective. I'm not shooting posters, so picture quality to me is no problem at all. And because of other posters' reasoning throughout this thread, I believe the crop format will be around for a long time to come. Sure hope so.

Response to Paul G and others:

 

Don't mean to quibble, but crop boxes don't change your full frame 300 & 400mm lenses into 480 & 640mm. Angle of acceptance doesn't change, so end of story, no way to beat physics. It's all slight of hand, of course, the same crop and enlarge techniques we've all used for years. This type misconception underlies the exception to posters opting only for full frame when speaking of long glass for crop boxes. Compared to long crop glass, long full frame glass on cropped boxes adds nothing more than a lot of weight, length and cost, and all at lower speed. And to match speed, weight, length and cost increase exponentially. In terms of picture quality, the sensor in your crop body is all you've got, so quality of picture capture doesn't change (may not be totally accurate, getting only the full frame lenses' sweet spot is a plus, but probably fully offset by increased enlargement to achieve equal print size). For absolute max, of course, totally full frame beats crop frame, in turn is beat by medium format, etc. It's the old battle, we all make weight, length and cost trade-offs in any equipment decision. IMHO, in terms of the 35mm vs. crop trade-off, reduced size, weight and cost, coupled with still excellent results, count for a lot, and in terms of overall compromise, are hard to beat. I agree that full frame at near equal crop cost would be a come-on (although realistically could apply only to the box, which in itself is a wild reach of imagination, never to the far larger diameter glass). But box weight and size and lens weight, length and relative speed issues never could be equal, crop always sins, again just a matter of physics, so hard to imagine there not remaining plenty of demand for crop equipment. If I'm wrong on the science, BTW, please pardon, but think I've got it right. just a photographer like the rest of you trying to digest all this stuff.