Canon L lenses - why so good?

Watch
Kitty Pimms
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#1
I am contemplating, in the next few months, taking out a personal loan to shell out a wincingly large amount of money on a DSLR (Canon 5D mk II, which seems like the best bang for buck without having to remortgage the house). It's possible to buy it bundled with an L series lens - the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens, to be precise - which cuts the cost of the lens by about £250 over the cost of buying it on its own. It looks like an excellent workhorse lens and I'm impressed by the flexibility it offers.

However, since I'm already having mild palpitations over the idea of forking out for the body, I'm wondering whether the cost of the lens over a bog-standard non-L series lens - say, the Canon EF - Zoom lens - 28 mm - 135 mm - f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - is really worth it. In fact I like low-light photography so superficially the latter gives a better range of f-stops and seems like it might be more suitable for what I want to do.

Now, I've held the L-lens and it is undoubtedly a lovely piece of kit. But what is it that makes it better than the regular lens? How do the components differ? Will it make a massive difference in terms of image clarity? When paired with a full-frame camera will it make a sufficient difference as to be worth the extra £400 (or to put it another way, would I be an idiot to pair a camera with such a cracking sensor with a non-L series lens)? Will I regret it if I don't go for the £250 off bundle?

Sorry for the millions of questions, I'm a bit of a newb - I've been reading like a fiend on DSLRs but I have an embarrassing lack of field experience at the moment.
0
reply
DJW
Badges: 7
#2
Report 9 years ago
#2
First Google result for "Canon L Lens".
0
reply
Kitty Pimms
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#3

Thanks, I did read that article I guess I just wanted some personal experience since I am wondering what those particular lenses have to offer for the price. I should probably try a photography forum too, thinking about it!
0
reply
Deep Thought
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 years ago
#4
I can't speak much for Canon L lenses, but What I do know from reading is that Canon adds more elements and groups into their L series, also I presume maybe some higher quality glass, this essentially changes the dynamics of the lens, and could alter distortion issues, make bokeh more creamy, etc.

Why do you want to buy a 5DmkII? What is your previous camera not doing for you? Have you considered a 5DmkI instead? It's just as good IMO.

I think if you are already concerned about cost you should probably stick to APS-C. When you go to Full-Frame, lenses will become slightly more pricey, however with APS-C you usually have cheaper options, like the 17-40mm f/4 L, etc.

I think you should rethink, the lens is what makes an image, the camera just records it. Most digital cameras are very good "recorders" unless you go back 6 years +.

Also Lenses can last you a lifetime, cameras come and go.
0
reply
Kitty Pimms
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#5
(Original post by Deep Thought)
I can't speak much for Canon L lenses, but What I do know from reading is that Canon adds more elements and groups into their L series, also I presume maybe some higher quality glass, this essentially changes the dynamics of the lens, and could alter distortion issues, make bokeh more creamy, etc.

Why do you want to buy a 5DmkII? What is your previous camera not doing for you? Have you considered a 5DmkI instead? It's just as good IMO.
Fair question - I did consider the mkI (and I haven't ruled it out) but I was put off by the sensor comparisons (good reason) and the apparently massively fiddly controls (less good reason). I will certainly do more research on the mkI, especially since a local camera store has a ridiculously good deal on a reconditioned mkI body at the moment (£800).

I think if you are already concerned about cost you should probably stick to APS-C. When you go to Full-Frame, lenses will become slightly more pricey, however with APS-C you usually have cheaper options, like the 17-40mm f/4 L, etc.
Absolutely, I know they're a lot more. I was also considering the 50D but my logic for full frame is that I do not want to buy another camera body for a very long time. I'm upgrading from a powershot G11, I've got a bit of money to spend from family etc, and I'm probably not going to have the opportunity to buy another camera body for 8-10 years at the earliest, and in that time I want to invest in lenses. So that being said I wanted to get something as future proof as possible while I'm able to - and if I'm going to fork out, then I might as well get a Full Frame camera. (Perhaps totally stupid logic, but there you go).

I think you should rethink, the lens is what makes an image, the camera just records it. Most digital cameras are very good "recorders" unless you go back 6 years +.

Also Lenses can last you a lifetime, cameras come and go.
Again, a very good point - which is why I don't want to just brush over the L lens because it will hurt my wallet more now. You've hit the nail on the head - I want to know if it's worth the investment.
0
reply
synergy1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 years ago
#6
(Original post by IlexAquifolium)
I am contemplating, in the next few months, taking out a personal loan to shell out a wincingly large amount of money on a DSLR (Canon 5D mk II, which seems like the best bang for buck without having to remortgage the house). It's possible to buy it bundled with an L series lens - the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens, to be precise - which cuts the cost of the lens by about £250 over the cost of buying it on its own. It looks like an excellent workhorse lens and I'm impressed by the flexibility it offers.

However, since I'm already having mild palpitations over the idea of forking out for the body, I'm wondering whether the cost of the lens over a bog-standard non-L series lens - say, the Canon EF - Zoom lens - 28 mm - 135 mm - f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - is really worth it. In fact I like low-light photography so superficially the latter gives a better range of f-stops and seems like it might be more suitable for what I want to do.

Now, I've held the L-lens and it is undoubtedly a lovely piece of kit. But what is it that makes it better than the regular lens? How do the components differ? Will it make a massive difference in terms of image clarity? When paired with a full-frame camera will it make a sufficient difference as to be worth the extra £400 (or to put it another way, would I be an idiot to pair a camera with such a cracking sensor with a non-L series lens)? Will I regret it if I don't go for the £250 off bundle?

Sorry for the millions of questions, I'm a bit of a newb - I've been reading like a fiend on DSLRs but I have an embarrassing lack of field experience at the moment.
You should have a look at the canon outlet on ebay. They usually have lots of refurbished 5d mark ii's and you can save a few hundred pounds!

I think if you get 5d mark ii kit this will last you a long time and as your types of photography changes the camera should be able to accommodate and in that respect getting the kit lens and gradually getting new lenses in the future is a great choice.

(although the 5d does have low fps??)

Edit: But as this is a big investment I would rent the 5d and try it with different lenses and see which you like the best, and if you think the L is worth the money. You could also try different cameras as well. It is bit silly to spend that much on a camera you haven't properly tried and keep it for 6 years.
0
reply
Deep Thought
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 years ago
#7
(Original post by IlexAquifolium)
Again, a very good point - which is why I don't want to just brush over the L lens because it will hurt my wallet more now. You've hit the nail on the head - I want to know if it's worth the investment.
Unfortunately I won't be making the decisions for you, you will have to decide what suits you. I think you should question the purpose of your photography. £800 is no doubt a lot to drop on something. Likewise I know very little on Canon, and know more about Nikon, Hasselblad, and other expensive stuff.

First off what do you plan to photograph?

Landscape? Travel? Architecture? Portraiture? Wildlife? Insects? Birds?

The list goes on, and there are lenses to suit these specialities. I personally never use telephotos. Only time I generally use one was on a Wista 4x5inch camera, but then that's a whole new playing field.

also how much time or how much will you dedicate in photography? Do you know much about photography? Is the 5DmkII what you really want?

I understand you want a lens for low light, so some old pro bodies become out of the question, unless you want to do long exposures. I know somebody who owns a Nikon D2hs. Its a 2003 camera, its still as good as anything, however I say that on the basis that I never use ISO's above 400.

The 5DmkI is still a very good camera, and gives very good clean shots from 50 - 1600, however if noise is the issue, then the 5DmkII and 7D are both worth considering if you are serious about photography.

If not maybe a 40D, or the latest entry level in Canon. I personally think the 5DmkII will be out of date come 2011/2012. There are already new models that have surpassed it. Nikons range offers better high ISOs in my opinion.

Nikon D700, D3, D3s are worth looking into, as well as the Canon 1DmkIV; that's if you want a camera to last you for 10 years. Technology is advancing insanely, the nikon D60 of 2008 is now obsolete. Where do you think the 5DmkII will be?

I know the cameras I have listed are out of your budget, or I am assuming, however look at the Nikon D1x, and compare to todays cameras. that is already the sign of 10 years difference. It won t be long till 3d cameras are out.

Just some food for thought.
0
reply
alieneater
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 9 years ago
#8
There is little point paying a lot of money for a Canon 5D mk II and putting cheap lenses on it. The 21 megapixels and full frame sensor will really show any limitations of any lens you put on it, I expect there will be a noticeable difference in image quality between the 24-105mm L lens and the 28-135 non-L, as well as a big difference in build quality.

You should think about getting something like a 7D or 50D or a 5D mkI , you could use the spare money to get a couple of very nice lenses. I dont think you would feel you would feel like these cameras are much inferior, especially as this will be your first DSLR. Lenses are a better long term investment, you can always upgrade the body in a few years when technology has further advanced.
0
reply
Kitty Pimms
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#9
Just to say thank you quickly to you both - you raise very good points that I need to think about. I'm a bit pushed for time this evening or I'd reply to you properly but in the meantime I wanted to say that I appreciate the responses.
0
reply
dd1989
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 9 years ago
#10
I often wonder why L glass is not fixed aperture through the zoom range, Olympus for example keep all their Professional grade glass at a fixed aperture, whilst somehow retaining L glass rivalling quality, for example there's ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35-100mm 1:2.0, ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 90-250mm 1:2.8.

Surely the very best Canon lenses ought to be fast too?
0
reply
Deep Thought
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 9 years ago
#11
Though I suppose I was hinting it, to a degree, Alieneater is very much right in his suggestion.

the 1D mkIIN was the bees knees when it was released, and no doubt priced competitively in the professional market a few years ago, today it sells around £1000. I know a person who uses this camera purely for sports, because that is what he's into. He gets some very decent shots from it. this undoubtedly proves that despite it not being top of the pack, it still performs very well. I think its more about getting accustomed to the camera then anything.

A nikon D2hs I think these days is about £350 it was a great camera, I still personally think its good enough for personal use today. However entry levels today are on par with them if not better.

The 5DmkII is on the same route, like all digital cameras. I today only have two digital cameras, okay 3, but the 3rd one is a different kind.

I have a Nikon D200 + a Fujifilm s3 pro. Now the S3 is past it in many respects, but it still has an ace up its sleeve, which becomes a joy to use still today. S3(and S5) both have unique digital sensors, called Super CCD. these sensors were designed to give you incredible amounts of dynamic Range, which some top of the line cameras struggle to produce today.

The S3 gives me more then 11 stops of DR at ISO400. The Canon 5DmkII struggles to produce 10.5 stops at ISO100 without seeing pattern noise. This camera can probably be had for £400 these days, its still a gem, but I only bought it, because of what I intended to use it for.

Most my work is studio work, and low iso's, the dynamic range, and features it presents, gives me something different to work with, that other cams are yet to make anything resembling it.

I know Ive rattled on abit, but I agree with alieneater that it would be ideal you get very good lenses, and a camera that might be 3-5 years old, if photography is not going to be a big hobby. Getting the lenses you need for your genres you want to focus would be beneficial too. If you prefer canon then that's fine. I only mention Nikon because that's what Ive been using for a while now.
0
reply
DJW
Badges: 7
#12
Report 9 years ago
#12
(Original post by dd1989)
I often wonder why L glass is not fixed aperture through the zoom range
I've been looking at them a fair bit tonight as my Tamron really isn't cutting it for me any more and all the ones I've seen whilst looking are f/2.8 or f/4 throughout the whole range.
The link I posted in the first reply to the thread says "most" are fixed minimum aperture so obviously there are exceptions but they appear to be rare.
0
reply
Steeps
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 9 years ago
#13
From what I've seen there's only 2 L glass lenses that do not have a constant aperature, the Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS USM and the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM. Over such a large focal range it would be stupidly heavy and expensive to have a constant low aperature through the entire zoom range.

I'd like to throw a penny in the works though that if you are doing portraits I'd rather stick with the full frame rather than with a crop, and getting the most out of that sensor you'd need quality glass and lighting. You get so much more "depth" and contrast from the full frame sensor which to me really helps make the photos pop in the same way you get between a compact and a dslr. Having a cheap lens on the end will really show on a full frame compared to on a crop.

With your arguement about getting the best you can now as an investment, quality glass over body anyday. I'd rather pair up a 50d with L glass than a 5dII with a £300 lens. I started off at the bottom with a 400d and a kitlens, first step was to upgrade the lenses, then I upgraded to a 40d but still the best investment I ever made was in a quality flashgun.
0
reply
Zooom
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 9 years ago
#14
(Original post by Genesis-ar92)
I would recommend:
for bird photography: A cropped sensor camera (EOS 550D) with a 300m+ L-lens
for landscape: a full-frame sensor camera, 1D with a wide angle lens
for portraits: 50D, 5D or 550D are all good, a 50mm lens with a very low aperture. no need for an L-lens
Sorry I have to disagree there. I have done wildlife before, and when you are shooting Ospreys, Pelicans, and Darters, also BIF(Birds in Flight) you will be wanting the 400mm f/5.6L at least, and a 1.7x Teleconverter for BIF.

But yes you definitely will need an APS-C camera.

As for portraits, you do not need a Full-frame, but you would be delirious by saying it does not help them. Full-frame, or APS-H are both beneficial for portraits. David Bailey uses a Hasselblad for a reason, same goes for all the Serious photographers who drop enough cash to buy an island on a Hasselblad.

However is money is an issue, then theres no point in fussing over Full-frame but it never the less does help. In fact some birders that I know use the D3 for birding, purely because of how beneficial a larger format is!
0
reply
Richie90
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 9 years ago
#15
My two-pennyworth -

You say you're a bit of a noob. Why spend so much on a body then?

Start off with a cheaper maybe slightly older body, and invest in the glass. I'd have thought that for £1k you could get a reasonable 40D and some L glass to start you off. Use this as a launching pad. Find out what works for you and what doesnt. As you begin to learn and grow as a photographer, start looking at what you think is lacking in your camera bag.

As someone suggested, quite early on, you'll want a dedicated flashgun - for official canon ones, these dont come cheap, you're looking at between £150-300 for it, which would be absorbed by getting a slightly older body.

Unless you want some HD movie shooting or the latest and greatest kit, then something like the 40D should be adequate.

You also say you only want to buy one camera. Might i suggest that you upgrade to a ff in subsequent years, once you feel you'll benefit from the advantages they have. If you want the 5DmkII, it will only ever be dropping in price. A few years down the line, you'll be able to pick one up for £600 or so, and you'll have no doubt saved for it so probably wouldnt need a loan.

I hope thats of some help. If you want to do more research i'd suggest some of the photography forums that exist out there with pro's and amateurs alike who can offer centuries of experience!
0
reply
synergy1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#16
Report 9 years ago
#16
(Original post by Genesis-ar92)
500D or 550D would be a GREAT camera for you. I highly recommend them!
Isn't the 50d a much better camera than the 550d or 500d for a very similar price?

It has better autofocus, build quality, viewfinder, fps etc.

Surely the only reason to get the 500d/550d would be for the size or video capabilities.
0
reply
lareneg
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 9 years ago
#17
I would get the 50D over the 500D/550D any day.

Where I say xD, xxD, xxxD I'm referring to the series of cameras (i.e. xD = 1D, 5D, 7D... xxD = 40D, 50D..., xxxD = 450D, 500D, 550D...)

OP - As has already been mentioned to you, a cropped camera would probably benefit you better, unless you need the wider range that a full frame camera gets you. If you're not sure of what a full frame vs cropped camera is, the Canon cropped frame cameras (The xxD, xxxD and 7D cameras) basically magnify all your photos by 1.6 times. This makes it useful for shooting wildlife etc, as you get 'closer'. Basically, using a 300mm lens on a cropped camera would be like using a 480mm lens on a full frame camera.

If you haven't really dabbled in photography before, I wouldn't recommend going straight to the xD series. A 40D or 50D would be much cheaper, and would still be amazing for you. You could spend the money saved on more lenses!
0
reply
Kitty Pimms
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#18
Firstly - THANK YOU for all your help. I really appreciate so many of you taking the time to post such considered responses. I'm wading my way through the thread with rep, so if I haven't thanked you personally yet, I will.


To answer you all the points one-by-one I'm going to do a kind of multi-quote group since some of the same points have come up from different people.


L Lenses

(Original post by alieneater)
There is little point paying a lot of money for a Canon 5D mk II and putting cheap lenses on it. The 21 megapixels and full frame sensor will really show any limitations of any lens you put on it, I expect there will be a noticeable difference in image quality between the 24-105mm L lens and the 28-135 non-L, as well as a big difference in build quality.
That's pretty much the answer to my original question, cheers. Actually more than the price what was putting me off the L was the weight but if it's worth the extra heft then that's fine by me. Thanks I've answered your other point below.


Other models - Canon v. Nikon v. ?

(Original post by Deep Thought)
Unfortunately I won't be making the decisions for you, you will have to decide what suits you. I think you should question the purpose of your photography. £800 is no doubt a lot to drop on something. Likewise I know very little on Canon, and know more about Nikon, Hasselblad, and other expensive stuff.
Yes, for sure. Ultimately the most important thing to me is that I get a camera that feels like an 'arm extension'. That's why I've been put off the Nikons so far. I know that in a lot of respects something like the D700 might be more suited to my needs, but when I've tried it I'd found it heavy and fiddly. Now I am not daft enough to ignore good reasons why I should get over this initial reservation, but equally, if there's not a lot in it then I think instinct is not a bad reason to make a decision. I was brought up using Canons which is why I've looked that them first (currently using an SS10, G11, and an EOS 300). The 300 is technically my father's and I've not yet invested in lenses beyond the two rather basic zooms he's bought (since I didn't want to shell out on Canon lenses yet if I'm considering changing) I'm not restricted by having already bought into a system, and would absolutely consider switching to another.

(Original post by alieneater)
You should think about getting something like a 7D or 50D or a 5D mkI , you could use the spare money to get a couple of very nice lenses. I dont think you would feel you would feel like these cameras are much inferior, especially as this will be your first DSLR. Lenses are a better long term investment, you can always upgrade the body in a few years when technology has further advanced.
Again, fair point and something I am definitely going to consider. It's always been my intention to invest in good lenses over the years, the question really is whether I do it now with 'spare' money from the camera body, or whether I hold off and buy them slowly. I'll be aiming to pick up a (good quality, probably £600 - £900 range) lens per year after I buy the body.

(Original post by Richie90)
My two-pennyworth -

You say you're a bit of a noob. Why spend so much on a body then?

Start off with a cheaper maybe slightly older body, and invest in the glass. I'd have thought that for £1k you could get a reasonable 40D and some L glass to start you off. Use this as a launching pad. Find out what works for you and what doesnt. As you begin to learn and grow as a photographer, start looking at what you think is lacking in your camera bag.

As someone suggested, quite early on, you'll want a dedicated flashgun - for official canon ones, these dont come cheap, you're looking at between £150-300 for it, which would be absorbed by getting a slightly older body.

Unless you want some HD movie shooting or the latest and greatest kit, then something like the 40D should be adequate.
Definitely food for thought, thanks. I do have a soft spot for the 50D so if I go the APS-C route that's probably the one I'd go for - and it's not much more than the 40D anymore. HD movie would be nice, but I could happily live without.

(Original post by Richie90)
You also say you only want to buy one camera. Might i suggest that you upgrade to a ff in subsequent years, once you feel you'll benefit from the advantages they have. If you want the 5DmkII, it will only ever be dropping in price. A few years down the line, you'll be able to pick one up for £600 or so, and you'll have no doubt saved for it so probably wouldnt need a loan.

I hope thats of some help. If you want to do more research i'd suggest some of the photography forums that exist out there with pro's and amateurs alike who can offer centuries of experience!
Again, definitely something I should consider. I think I will sit down and discuss the pros and cons with the other half, since he's going halves with me on the body so it's as much his call as it is mine.

(Original post by Deep Thought)
Though I suppose I was hinting it, to a degree, Alieneater is very much right in his suggestion.

the 1D mkIIN was the bees knees when it was released, and no doubt priced competitively in the professional market a few years ago, today it sells around £1000. I know a person who uses this camera purely for sports, because that is what he's into. He gets some very decent shots from it. this undoubtedly proves that despite it not being top of the pack, it still performs very well. I think its more about getting accustomed to the camera then anything.

A nikon D2hs I think these days is about £350 it was a great camera, I still personally think its good enough for personal use today. However entry levels today are on par with them if not better.

The 5DmkII is on the same route, like all digital cameras. I today only have two digital cameras, okay 3, but the 3rd one is a different kind.

I have a Nikon D200 + a Fujifilm s3 pro. Now the S3 is past it in many respects, but it still has an ace up its sleeve, which becomes a joy to use still today. S3(and S5) both have unique digital sensors, called Super CCD. these sensors were designed to give you incredible amounts of dynamic Range, which some top of the line cameras struggle to produce today.

The S3 gives me more then 11 stops of DR at ISO400. The Canon 5DmkII struggles to produce 10.5 stops at ISO100 without seeing pattern noise. This camera can probably be had for £400 these days, its still a gem, but I only bought it, because of what I intended to use it for.

Most my work is studio work, and low iso's, the dynamic range, and features it presents, gives me something different to work with, that other cams are yet to make anything resembling it.

I know Ive rattled on abit, but I agree with alieneater that it would be ideal you get very good lenses, and a camera that might be 3-5 years old, if photography is not going to be a big hobby. Getting the lenses you need for your genres you want to focus would be beneficial too. If you prefer canon then that's fine. I only mention Nikon because that's what Ive been using for a while now.
Again, a fantastic post! I will get a bit more creative in looking at older bodies in that case. I was originally looking at the 5D before being swayed by various posts from very active enthusiasts about the upgrade from the mk I. But I do take your point that I might not get the best out of those bumps.

(Original post by Steeps)

I'd like to throw a penny in the works though that if you are doing portraits I'd rather stick with the full frame rather than with a crop, and getting the most out of that sensor you'd need quality glass and lighting. You get so much more "depth" and contrast from the full frame sensor which to me really helps make the photos pop in the same way you get between a compact and a dslr. Having a cheap lens on the end will really show on a full frame compared to on a crop.

With your arguement about getting the best you can now as an investment, quality glass over body anyday. I'd rather pair up a 50d with L glass than a 5dII with a £300 lens. I started off at the bottom with a 400d and a kitlens, first step was to upgrade the lenses, then I upgraded to a 40d but still the best investment I ever made was in a quality flashgun.
Thanks for the personal view I'm certainly starting to think about something like the original 5D with the L lens mentioned above + a flashgun + a good quality wide angle prime for a similar price. I'll weigh up the finances of it all. Thank you

(Original post by Genesis-ar92)

It is the cameras megapixel that determines the resolution of the image, and this is not really affected by sensor size. You can have a full frame with a lower megapixels than a crop sensor. Also anything higher than 15MP is pointless unless you want your image on the side of a building.
Lol - this made me laugh! Also good to know, I've been thinking the 21mp is probably overkill for my needs (although I do quite a lot of A1 poster prints).

Types of photography


(Original post by Deep Thought)
First off what do you plan to photograph?

Landscape? Travel? Architecture? Portraiture? Wildlife? Insects? Birds?

Mostly I've taken cityscapes (especially at night), architecture, and portrait. The first two is why I've been considering full frame. I'm not really interested in wildlife (there's none round here anyway!!) but I do like taking pet portraits so the Nikon's better AF range would undoubtedly be an advantage when they're not playing ball. I'd be interested in macro photography but haven't really given it much attention to now.


Knowledge / time

(Original post by Deep Thought)
also how much time or how much will you dedicate in photography? Do you know much about photography?

At the moment it's an active self taught hobby. However I am educating myself more - I've been steadily working my way through photography books borrowed from the library and I'm planning to enroll on a part time NVQ1 in the summer. If I have time I'd like to progress to 2 the following year but it depends on how I can fit it around my 'proper job'.



Obseletion

(Original post by Deep Thought)
Nikon D700, D3, D3s are worth looking into, as well as the Canon 1DmkIV; that's if you want a camera to last you for 10 years. Technology is advancing insanely, the nikon D60 of 2008 is now obsolete. Where do you think the 5DmkII will be?

No, that's an excellent point. I suppose my answer is simply that I'm still using old cameras - the 300 is 10 years old now and I still love it. I know that digital is different from film and has been accelerating at an unprecedented rate, and I'm not expecting any camera I buy to always be top of the line because I know that's impossible. But I do want a camera that will allow me to grow with it, build a system over several years, and not limit me in several years time as I develop as a photographer. I appreciate that a lot of cameras fall into that category, but I simply want something I won't be frustrated by in five years' time.



Buying

(Original post by synergy1)
You should have a look at the canon outlet on ebay. They usually have lots of refurbished 5d mark ii's and you can save a few hundred pounds!
Wow, they really do have some good prices. Nevertheless I was intending to buy from Jessops because they have a really good 0% finance option. But if it would work out much cheaper I'll think about talking to the bank, particularly if I'm swayed by an older model.

(Original post by synergy1)
I think if you get 5d mark ii kit this will last you a long time and as your types of photography changes the camera should be able to accommodate and in that respect getting the kit lens and gradually getting new lenses in the future is a great choice.
I'm definitely not suggesting cheaping out on lenses. I've got a list of 3 or 4 that I will want to buy over the next few years; it's just a question of whether I spend less on the body and get them now, or if I spend more and buy the lenses more slowly. For example my parents have already said they'll get me a macro lens for Christmas so that's sorted.

(Original post by synergy1)
Edit: But as this is a big investment I would rent the 5d and try it with different lenses and see which you like the best, and if you think the L is worth the money. You could also try different cameras as well. It is bit silly to spend that much on a camera you haven't properly tried and keep it for 6 years.
Yes, absolutely. I've tried it in the shop but I agree that renting would be a good call. Thank you - do you have any suggestions about where I might go about finding a rental agency?
0
reply
Zooom
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 9 years ago
#19
(Original post by Genesis-ar92)
<snip>
Seems like I touched a nerve, however my argument remains valid. I don't see why you had to emotional over this, I wasn't putting you down to shame, I clearly stated that I disagreed, that there is an opinion to a degree.

However you mentioned I think quite a lot of professionals will disagree with you're assessment of using full-frames for portraiture work. Larger formats will always give you better dynamic range, I know a friend who uses a Leaf Aptus 22 for professional work; that's a 6x4.5cm format. They said they only use their full-frame 1D MkIII only when they got wedding.

anyways she has a 80mm f/2.8 a Hasselblad H2, and a Leaf Aptus 22. For you to get that equivalent in APS-C format you would need a 29mm f/1. I don't think canon or Nikon make anything of the sort...

She charges AU$1000 for a shoot, and that excludes prints, or DVD. She gets about 8 shoots a month. Go figure.

You speak of personal opinion, you clearly stated that you dont care what others use, and I have never said used APS-C isn't a bad thing, but pros always use larger sensors for a reason.
0
reply
La Trampa
  • CV Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 9 years ago
#20
My 2p if it counts. In your position, I'd invest in lenses and get a good body. Bodies change nearly every couple of years, the glass stays the same. If you got say a Canon 50D, an L lens and another quality lens, you'd be set. As much as the 5D II is amazing and everyone wants to go full frame, it's been quite a while since it was release thus begging the question, how soon is the upgrade body going to be released. The 7D and 1DIV have only just come out and before then, the 5DII was the beesknees.

I would also suggest not buying from Jessops, they tend to be very expensive. There are other stores that don't mark up their prices so much and will still allow/offer a flexible payment option if you ask. Good luck with the choice anyways!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now? (select all that apply)

Lack of purpose or routine (277)
15.42%
Uncertainty around my education (281)
15.65%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (178)
9.91%
Isolating with family (127)
7.07%
Lack of support system (eg. Teachers, counsellors) (80)
4.45%
Lack of exercise/ability to be outside (150)
8.35%
Loneliness (177)
9.86%
Financial worries (74)
4.12%
Concern about myself or my loved ones getting ill (165)
9.19%
Exposure to negative news/social media (128)
7.13%
Lack of real life entertainment (eg. cinema, gigs, restaurants) (159)
8.85%

Watched Threads

View All