Buying decisions

[Oren]

Ok guys, I know that I had a similar post before, but now I (think at least) am about to buy my first DSLR and I need some help. I know for sure it'd be either 40D or 50D, but not quite sure which one and what lens. Ideally, I'd get the 50D with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, but right now it's too expensive to me as I *do* want some tele lens ("L") as well. So my options are pretty much like this:


1. 40D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


2. 40D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM + 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM


3. 50D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


4. 50D +70-200mm f/4.0 L USM


The thing is that I really want the new VGA screen on the 50D, but I also really want a tele lens and want it to be an L lens - and the 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM is the only L lens I can afford right now, so other tele's are not an option right now. As you see from my list, if I go for the 50D I'll have to give up on either the general or the tele lens.


The 40D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM will cost me the same as the 50D body alone - but then bye bye fancy VGA screen [].
So I need your help here, especially your thoughts regarding #4 - which is a camera without a general purpose lens.


I shoot a lot indoors right now using my S60 P&S and I always wish I had more reach on the long end. The S60's long end in 35mm terms is about 105mm if memory serves me right. The 50D/40D +70-200mm f/4.0 L USM long end is 320mm (I need more help regarding this point BTW so I'll ask it at the end of this post *).


So, is it possible to have just the 70-200 for indoors? I don't mind and actually prefer taking few steps away from my subjects - and most of the time I have enough room to do that too.


And also, will the 70-200 be a good tele lens for outdoor uses? isn't it too short? I don't pretend to be a bird photographer with this lens, but is it at least possible to take SOME bird or wildlife photos with it or that'd be COMPLETELY impossible with this lens?





*Ok I promissed another question so there we go:


I've been around this site and forums (and few other sites) for quite enough time to understand most of the things including the crop factor thingy as well, but I must admit that I still don't get this 35mm equiv. thing (which also relates to the crop factor) 100%.


I do understand that, for example, my P&S at the long end is equiv. to 105mm on a 35mm/FF body in the framing/angle of view, or that a 40D with a 100mm lens will have the same framing as a 160mm lens on a 35mm/FF body. What I *don't* get is how magnification will be? Again, I've read not once that focal length is the same, and that "100mm is 100mm no matter what body you use"... so why I'm still confused? 2 reasons:


1. I keep reading that bird and wildlife photographers prefer a 1.6 crop body but can't understand why? because they don't need to crop the photo in the post processing? I doubt that's the reason as it sounds a bit dumb reason to me.


2. Now this is the main reason, I think, as to why I'm still confused - I don't have a DSLR.


Can someone who have both P&S and a DSLR please help me, and probably others, to finally **see** the differences with our eyes? Can you please take a picture of some object with both a P&S and a DSLR from the same distance? For example - take a P&S and zoom in until the focal length is equiv. to 100mm in 35mm terms, then from the same place use your DSLR with a 100mm lens... now, post the results, and let us know what exact P&S you use and what exact DSLR + lens as well.


One more thing... If I take the same picture with 2 lenses at the same focal length how much the final results are affected by the lens magnification capability? The EF 400mm f/5.6 magnification for example is .12 while the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is .2, what's the difference then? (at 400mm of course)





Thanks again guys for reading such a long post []

[Dallasphotog]

The crop factor or 35MM equivalency issue is simply related to the sensor sizes. The 1.6 crop factor cameras have sensors smaller than a piece of 35MM film and thus only get the center on the image (effectively cropping the image you would get on 35mm film). As you mentioned, wildlife photographers benefit from this cropping effect. A300MM lens produces the field of view you would get with a480MM lens on film.You can then have endless discussions about pixel density and the other sensor issues...


As foryour choices, you will find the 40D and 50D to both be good cameras and you've listed several nice lens. I really love the EF70-200MM F/2.8 L IS USM and find it works well for many sporting events and is quite useful from the back of the church during wedding shoots. The F/4 version will probably be quite useful for you, but a tad slower. I think you'll find any of the current Canon DSLR choices will be a huge step up from a point-and-shoot.


I have a 1dMKII, XTi and XT and I still use the XT for all kinds of commercial work. If you're really budgetconstrained, think about a refurbishedbody from Adorama, even an XTi, which will allow more money for lenses.

[Oren]

Thanks for the help. As for the crop factor thing, it didn't help - I know all that already. As I said, I'd like to see the differences in my own eyes.


As for the body, I don't see myself getting a more expensive body than the XXD series in the next few years, and I don't really see myself with a XXXD body as well - and if I go for XXXD anyway, I'll probably replace it sooner or later with a XXD body. Therefore, I don't see a point buying anything other then a 40D or 50D. Besides, getting a XXXD body will save me about $200 - that's the difference pretty much between a brand new 40D to a brand new 450D where I live. Also, where I live, I'll pay tax even for used equipment so buying a refurb is not a good option anyway.


May I ask why do you use the XT if you have a 1D2?


Anyways, I really appreciate your help Dallasphotog [H]


As to all the other guys over here, I've made a pretty long post with lots of questions and therfore I will probably be getting mixed answers to my mixed questions lol, so I feel a need to emphasize my biggest questions:


Would it be possible to use only 50D + 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) for say few months (> 6) or maybe even more?

[Mark Elberson]

Would it be possible to use only 50D + 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) for say few months (> 6) or maybe even more?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

The FOV (Field of View) of the 70-200 f/4L when paired with a XXD body will be equivalent to about 112mm or 21.8 degrees (diagonally). You will find that extremely limiting when shooting indoors (unless you take a lot of head shots [H]). To give you some perspective zoom inall the way in using your P&amp;S and see what the FOV is. That will be slightly wider than the widest setting on the 70-200 f/4L (when paired with a XXD body). I think that you'd be much better off with a lens that gives you a wider FOV if you are going to be shooting primarily indoors. I know you want it all right now. We all do! Putting together a comprehensive DSLR kit takes time (and lots of money!). Many members of this forumwill suggest that you consider the Tamron SP AF 17 - 50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II. That would pair very nicely with the 70-200 f/4L. If you are looking at the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4L then you could get both it and the Tamron for about the same price that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS will cost. I personally would pony up for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and wait on the 70-200 f/4L []. Remember that you'll spend more money if you have to spend it twice. Really think about what you need and not just what will temporarily satisfy what you want right now.

[Jack M.]

The VGA screen is nice, but ifI was in your position,I would not go for it if it were to cost me a new lens. This is solely my opinion, others could be completely disagree. You cant go wrong with either.
<div></div>
<div>If you were to go with the 40D -</div>


I would go with the <span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as your first general purpose lens. Itwill give you better IQ then the 28-135, and a wider angle. You wont have the reach of the 28-135, but you will have most of the focal range covered that the 17-50 doesn't have with the 70-200 . That and a major plusis that its got a constant aperture of 2.8, you will wish you had that with the 28-135.
<div>The 40D,<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]Tamron17-50mm and 70-200L would definitely be the wayI would go ifI were in your position.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>


Now, If you were to go with the 50D -
<div>Its really hard to say if the 70-200 will last you 6+ months. When choosing between a general lens and a <span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]tele, it comes down to what your mainly going to be shooting. If you go with the 70-200, your always going to want that shorter shorter focal length. If you go with the general purpose lens, you always going to want that<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]tele reach.You just have to prioritize and go for the range that willbe best untilyou can afford another lens.</div>
<div></div>
<div>So to try to answer your biggest question - Will it be possible to use the 70-200 alone for 6+ months? Yes. Will you be satisfied? Probably not. Your going to want more range and a larger aperture. Either way you going to have much better IQ and versatility then any P&amp;S can offer.</div>
<div></div>


You may or may not have read these pages already, but they have great information on crop factors. They have some examples of different views from different crop factors.


CMOS-White-Paper.<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]pdf


aspx





Good luck with you final choice!

[Dallasphotog]

May I ask why do you use the XT if you have a 1D2?

That's easy, my typical game day set-up is 1DMKII w/ EF400mm F/2.8L IS USM, XTi w/ EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM and XT w/ 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM. I put the 400 on a monopod and sling the XTi over one shoulder and put the XT around my neck. Sometimes the Agony-of-Defeat is best captured with the 24-70.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.00/TN_5F00_IMG_5F00_6486.jpg[/img]


XT, EF24-70mm F/2.8L USM, Av, F/8.0, 1/800, ISO-400

[Oren]

alexniedra, I used to want the 24-70... I always thought: hmmm 17-55 or 24-70.


I now know that the answer is probably the 17-55 for many reasons.


Dallasphotog, this is a great photo, I like it. How can you handle 3 cameras with 3 heavy lenses like these?

[Bill M.]

Oren,


My vote would be for the 40D and the 17-85 combo. If you were considering the 28-135, then the IQ and build quality of the 17-85 can't be far off from that. My friend picked up the 40D a couple of months ago with the 17-85 and loves it. He's taken some really nice images with it from what I have seen. From reading most of the posts here at TDP, I think most people really like their 40D's. I think you really need a general purpose lens first and foremost that can give you wide-angle capabilities and then work on the 70-200 f4 as your next purchase. I used the 17-40 as my first L lens with my 20D and I thought it was a great lens to start with (but just a little short on the long end sometimes).


I just picked up the 5D II recently, and I can tell you that the VGA screen is an absolute thing of beauty, compared to the display on my older 20D. Is that and the extra megapixels you get with the 50D worth an extra $250, I don't know, but that is almost half the price of a new 17-85.


These discussion boards are great to get advice on decisions, but sometimes you just have to go with what's in your current budget and make due until you save up for the gear you really want (lots of L glass!). It seems you have done most of the research you need to make an educated decision on what to get----jump right in and get it! That way you can do what you really want to do and take some great pictures!

[Daniel Browning]

So my options are pretty much like this:

I think you have a lot more and better options.

First of all, we need to get rid of this business about the 28-135. That lens a waste of money on a crop camera. It's expensive, low quality, and only covers the normal-telephoto range; no wide angle. On top of that, you've already got the 70-135 range covered in the form of your L lens.

The 28-135 is for people who:

1. Don't want to shoot anything wide angle.
2. Are willing to pay extra money just so they don't have to change lenses in order to shoot telephoto.
3. Can't afford the extra $200 for a *really* all-purpose lens such as the 18-200.
4. Want to use the lens on a cheap film camera or a used 5D they got for under $1000.

I don't think many of those factors apply to you. You are buying the 70-200 L, so obviously you must be willing to change lenses. The 28-135 would only cover the range of 28-70 for you, leaving nothing for wide angle.

The 18-55 IS can cover a much more useful range, including wide angle, and has superior image quality. If you wanted telephoto for as cheap as the 28-135, you could just buy the 55-250. But you've already decided on the 70-200 L, so that's not necessary. It's true that there will be a gap between 55 and 70, but I would argue that such a gap is less important than the other factors. Even the ideal lens (17-55 f/2.8) will leave such a gap.

The thing is that I really want the new VGA screen on the 50D,

The LCD is a big feature, especially with how useful live view is. Another big one is the microadjustment. It doesn't matter how good your L lenses are if they don't focus accurately. If you only use manual focus, or you'll always use narrow apertures where focus doesn't need to be accurate, then the microadjustment will not make a big difference. But if you use autofocus and want to shoot wide open, then I'd say it's a critical feature.

if I go for the 50D I'll have to give up on either the general or the tele lens.

Only if you buy the overly-expensive 28-135. With a more reasonable 18-55 IS, you can have both.

So I need your help here, especially your thoughts regarding #4 - which is a camera without a general purpose lens.

Given that a high quality general purpose lens can be had for so cheap in the form of the 18-55 IS kit, I think it would be an unnecessary limitation.

I shoot a lot indoors right now using my S60 P&amp;S and I always wish I had more reach on the long end. The S60's long end in 35mm terms is about 105mm if memory serves me right.

The 18-55 would give you 90mm equivalent, a bit shorter than your 105mm. However, switch to the 70-200 and you have a lot more reach. The big advantage of the 18-55 is that you will finally have a true wide angle. It could really transform the style and perspective of your photogrpahy.

So, is it possible to have just the 70-200 for indoors? I don't mind and actually prefer taking few steps away from my subjects - and most of the time I have enough room to do that too.

It's possible, but you can have problems. Most indoors are too dark to handhold 200mm without I.S. Most people would need a shutter speed of 1/320 or 1/500 to combat camera shake. If we say 1/500, then look what happens with the 55-250 IS. At 200mm, it's f/5.6, so it has a 1 stop disadvantage compared to the 70-200 f/4. But it has a 4-stop image stabilizer! So you can shoot 1/30 or 1/60 instead of 1/500. That is more than enough to make up for the different in f-number. And there will be times when you want to shoot the 70-200 at f/5.6 anyway to get deeper DOF.

Yes, you heard right: the $250 consumer cheapie will give you *better* results than the $600 "L" lens. For indoor telephoto, image stabilization is that important.

Another option is the 135mm f/2, which would allow shutter speeds twice as fast as the 70-200 f/4 non-IS for the same amount of money, but no zoom. I love that lens for distant candid portraits, but achieving critical focus will be more difficult than a f/4 or f/5.6 lens, and the thin DOF may not always be desirable.

And also, will the 70-200 be a good tele lens for outdoor uses?

Yes. Outdoor you don't have to worry so much about camera shake.

Isn't it too short?

It depends on how close you can get to your subject. Generally, yes, it's too short. Even 1000mm is too short sometimes.

I don't pretend to be a bird photographer with this lens, but is it at least possible to take SOME bird or wildlife photos with it or that'd be COMPLETELY impossible with this lens?

Only if you can get unnaturally close to the bird.

What I *don't* get is how magnification will be?

It's the same. 100mm on APS-C and 160mm on FF35, both printed at the same size have the same magnification.

However, when the same lens is used on both formats, then APS-C has higher magnfication, because it is enlarged more for printing at the same size. Unless the FF35 image is cropped in post production to match the angle of view of the APS-C camrea. But if you crop the FF35 camera, the resolution is usually much lower than APS-C, which leads us back to the point that APS-C tends to have more "reach" because of it's smaller, higher-resolution pixels.

1. I keep reading that bird and wildlife photographers prefer a 1.6 crop body but can't understand why? because they don't need to crop the photo in the post processing? I doubt that's the reason as it sounds a bit dumb reason to me.

The Canon 5D2 has 21 MP. But if you crop it to match the field of view (and magnification) of a Canon 50D, you are left with 8 MP. 8 MP is much lower resolution than the 15 MP provided by the 50D. In other words: the larger sensor only benefits the image if you *use* it. And you can't use it if you can't find a lens that is long enough. For example, the 5D2+800mm f/5.6 will beat the 50D+500mm f/4.

One more thing... If I take the same picture with 2 lenses at the same focal length how much the final results are affected by the lens magnification capability?

If the focal length and camera is the same, then the final results will also be the same. Lens magnification capability indicates how big the image will be at the minimum focus distance.

The EF 400mm f/5.6 magnification for example is .12 while the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is .2, what's the difference then? (at 400mm of course)

The difference is the 100-400 can do better macros out of the box. For example, it could do a small daisy flower whereas the 400mm f/5.6 could only do a large daisy flower.

Would it be possible to use only 50D + 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) for say few months (&gt; 6) or maybe even more?

For the purpose of indoor candid photography, I would say no, because of the lack of IS and slow aperture will limit you to long-range flash, which is ugly, IMHO. Better lenses for that purpose are the 55-200 IS, 70-300 IS, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2.


Luckily, the 18-55 is so much cheaper than the 28-135 that I would hope you can afford to get the 50D, 18-55, and 70-200 f/4 L without breaking the bank.


Hope that helps,

[Oren]

Thanks Mark and Daniel - it helps a lot. Now I have at least some kind of understanding regarding the magnification thingy.


But as always, I'm just more confused than I was at first as to what lens/lenses to get [:P]


Daniel, the 18-55 IS kit lens was never an option for me - not even in a bad dream. Since you say it is optically better, I'll check Bryan's review right away anyways.


As for the 70-200 f/4 L, you say that it's too slow for indoors and too short for outdoors... so what are the uses of this lens?


Thanks again everybody.