Here we go again... which camera/lens combo? :-)

[tdesanto]

I have been reading reviews until my eyes are falling out today.:Wow1: It's hard to get reality in the wide range of owner reviews. Like anything on the internet, lots of differing opinions. I did see a few D200 owners complaining about the noise level in low light conditions. Since that is something that is important to me it caught my eye. I am willing to spend a little more to get crisp shots in low light or night time conditions.

Since you own a D200, how do you feel the low light noise levels are?

I normally shoot sunrise and sunset shots. I always work hard on getting the right exposure, as I have the luxury of doing so (on a tripod with plenty of time to adjust as the light changes). PM me your email address and I'll try to find some good examples of some low light images (full resolution). So far, I haven't been disappointed.

 

[Tucson T4R]

After doing a ton of research and talking to lots of folks, including some good local camera shops, I have been swayed to the Canon side of this equation. My Nikon fan Dad and others here on this forum may beat me, but after feeling the Canon 50D in my hands and reading the reviews of the camera and lens options, I believe this will be the best set up for me.

Camera - Canon 50D

Primary lens for landscape, night shots, and daily use. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Telephoto zoom for sporting events and wildlife use - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

This combo obviously blows my original budget but this should last me quite awhile and provide the quality I am looking for.

Rob, I sent you a PM about your Canon 50D

 

[Rob O]

After doing a ton of research and talking to lots of folks, including some good local camera shops, I have been swayed to the Canon side of this equation. My Nikon fan Dad and others here on this forum may beat me, but after feeling the Canon 50D in my hands and reading the reviews of the camera and lens options, I believe this will be the best set up for me.

Camera - Canon 50D

Primary lens for landscape, night shots, and daily use. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Telephoto zoom for sporting events and wildlife use - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

This combo obviously blows my original budget but this should last me quite awhile and provide the quality I am looking for.

Rob, I sent you a PM about your Canon 50D

PM replied. And if I decide to jump ship from Canon and a 5D Mk II upgrade for a Nikon D700, my 70-200 f/2.8L IS will also be available. :smiley_drive:

 

[Tucson T4R]

PM replied. And if I decide to jump ship from Canon and a 5D Mk II upgrade for a Nikon D700, my 70-200 f/2.8L IS will also be available. :smiley_drive:

It's pretty amazing to me how nicley things can line up sometimes. Seller's and buyer's needs both coming together at the same time. It doesn't get much better than that. :wings: Thanks, we'll stay in touch.

 

[Rob O]

It's pretty amazing to me how nicley things can line up sometimes. Seller's and buyer's needs both coming together at the same time. It doesn't get much better than that. :wings: Thanks, we'll stay in touch.

Heh ... indeed.

PM sent.

Cheers

 

[Zorro]

Hard to go wrong with that setup ... yet, some thoughts.

I'm not sure I see the point of a 50D over, say a 40D or even a 30D.

Our photography is quite close, as I shoot mostly MMA events (ridiculously fast people in a ridiculously dark environment) and the odd camping/4x4 trips.

I went with a 40D simply because I wanted the better ISO management and faster burst compared to a 30D. I did not see the point of a 50D, it wasn't enough of a step-up to justify the extra cost.

Thus far I've rented at least a dozen lenses ... and am still unsure what I want to buy! hahahaha

As for glass, I've used the 17-55 last week (rented it) and I was not impressed by the build quality. The zoom mechanism required uneven strength, with hard spots here and there. The lady said it was normal ... yet it was insanely annoying. Picture quality was fine, it just annoyed me every time I touched it.
I'd much rather go for a 17-40L (f2.8)

The Canon 70-200 is the big daddy, but remember there's also a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (no IS). I used it for a weekend and was pleasantly surprised, fast AF (not quite as fast as the Canon though) and very good image quality. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it and save 1000$ in the process.

You still don't have a wide angle. I tried the Canon 10-22, which I liked very much, except for the high aperture rating ... kills it for me and my pitch dark events. OTOH, Tokina makes an 11-16 f2.8 which looks promising, and it's cheap @ 599$CDN over here.

For sporting events, don't underestimate the power of a good low aperture prime. I shot my last MMA event with a 35mm f1.4L and was laughing all along at how fast the damn thing was. Instant focus, gobs of light going in ... I loved it. If only I could get my hands on a 50mm f1.0.

In the end I think my ideal setup will be a crap 18-55 kit lens to beat up as a daily, 11-16 Tokina and 70-200 Sigma. Inexpensive yet there wouldn't be a shot I couldn't take. Of course there's always a way to improve, but IMO that would make for a very good quality vs price setup.

 

[Rob O]

Hard to go wrong with that setup ... yet, some thoughts.

I'm not sure I see the point of a 50D over, say a 40D or even a 30D.

Our photography is quite close, as I shoot mostly MMA events (ridiculously fast people in a ridiculously dark environment) and the odd camping/4x4 trips.

I went with a 40D simply because I wanted the better ISO management and faster burst compared to a 30D. I did not see the point of a 50D, it wasn't enough of a step-up to justify the extra cost.

Thus far I've rented at least a dozen lenses ... and am still unsure what I want to buy! hahahaha

As for glass, I've used the 17-55 last week (rented it) and I was not impressed by the build quality. The zoom mechanism required uneven strength, with hard spots here and there. The lady said it was normal ... yet it was insanely annoying. Picture quality was fine, it just annoyed me every time I touched it.
I'd much rather go for a 17-40L (f2.8)

The Canon 70-200 is the big daddy, but remember there's also a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (no IS). I used it for a weekend and was pleasantly surprised, fast AF (not quite as fast as the Canon though) and very good image quality. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it and save 1000$ in the process.

You still don't have a wide angle. I tried the Canon 10-22, which I liked very much, except for the high aperture rating ... kills it for me and my pitch dark events. OTOH, Tokina makes an 11-16 f2.8 which looks promising, and it's cheap @ 599$CDN over here.

For sporting events, don't underestimate the power of a good low aperture prime. I shot my last MMA event with a 35mm f1.4L and was laughing all along at how fast the damn thing was. Instant focus, gobs of light going in ... I loved it. If only I could get my hands on a 50mm f1.0.

In the end I think my ideal setup will be a crap 18-55 kit lens to beat up as a daily, 11-16 Tokina and 70-200 Sigma. Inexpensive yet there wouldn't be a shot I couldn't take. Of course there's always a way to improve, but IMO that would make for a very good quality vs price setup.

Not sure I would have jumped from a 40D to 50D either, especially knowing I would get a 5D Mk II all along. However, the LCD on the 50D compared with the 40D is almost worth it alone and little upgrades like micro adjust are nice as well. I've had excellent results with it, including high ISO/low light ... it's considerable better than my 30D.

 

[Zorro]

Well I know I won't be getting a 5D mkII ... 4.3fps doesn't cut it. I'll have to go all the way to the 1DsMkIII. Which means I'll be keeping my 40D for a while ... LOL

 

[Tucson T4R]

Zorro,

Thanks for the input on my thought process here. I went with the 50D primarily due to the fact Rob is selling his when he upgrades and that gives me a good price. Also, I am not upgrading from an existing Canon camera so the 50D and it's improved LCD screen is atractive to me.

I'm looking forward to having quality camera equipment for once and improving my skills.

 

[Rob O]

Well I know I won't be getting a 5D mkII ... 4.3fps doesn't cut it. I'll have to go all the way to the 1DsMkIII. Which means I'll be keeping my 40D for a while ... LOL

Worse than that ... it's only 3.9fps. :-/ I can't believe there's not a way in firmware to do sRAW (12MP or so) with faster burst rates (over 5fps, if not approaching the D700's 8fps max). And don't get me started on the carryover AF system (which lags even the 50D's crosspoint for all 9). That's why I'll be keeping my 30D as backup, for kids sports and when I want the extra FOV afforded by the 1.6x crop factor. :victory:

 

[Lost Canadian]

4 FPS doesn't cut it??? Boy, what are you guys shooting, the Indy 500. LOL JK.

 

[sgt rock]

i picked up a canon mark5 11 from military afees- no sales tax and 200 off

 

[Zorro]

4 FPS doesn't cut it??? Boy, what are you guys shooting, the Indy 500. LOL JK.

Shooting MMA. These guys are fast!

 

[Photog]

Brad,
Now that you have picked the camera body (50D is a fine choice for your purposes), you need to work on the lenses. As others have pointed out, the lenses are where you should spend you $$$.

Each person's $$$ threshold is different; but the point that Jonathan Hanson makes: "Buy the best, cry once". Or is that: "Buy the best, & buy it once".

Good lenses will last through many bodies. The lens technology isn't changing as fast as the digital bodies. Determine which lens sizes you need, to shoot what you like, and get a pair of zooms, or a couple fixed and a zoom, etc.

I use a 19-35mm, 24-70mm f2.8 L, 70-200mm f2.8 L, and a 1.4X tele-converter. The 19-35mm is a cheap Vivitar and the others are Canon Professional. The 19-35mm makes the most dramatic images; but it gets used the least. The 24-70mm gets used the most, on my 1D MkII.

Many of the Pro lenses can be purchased used. The nice thing about digital, is you can check a lens, before you buy it. Take your new camera body and laptop, to the camera shop (or other seller) that has the used lens, and give it a try. Check the images on the laptop while you are there (don't use the camera screen for this inspection).

The Pro lenses are designed for full frame cameras, so the 50D will not use the edges of the lens. This leaves the sweetspot of the lens, for the photograph. The images should be sharp, corner to corner. A used Pro lens should cost about 75% or less, of new one.

 

[Tucson T4R]

Thanks for your input Brian. After doing some reaserch on lenses, I am currently planning on these two:

Primary lens for landscape, night shots, and daily use. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (not an L lens but is has great reviews on the glass and IQ)

Telephoto zoom for sporting events and wildlife use - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

I may also look into a good fixed wide angle lens down the road if the 17MM is not wide enough for me.

What is your opinion on these two lenses for my initial set up?