DSLR Users, what do you think of this setup?

[DBL]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Guh. I'm really not impressed by the bokeh of the 1.8. One of the reasons I jumped to 1.4, and it's still one of the weaker bokeh performers in my bag.

Then again 50mm and wider offer enough FOV that you really should be composing with backgrounds to give context to your subjects versus trying to isolate like you would with a telephoto, so the bokeh almost becomes a mute point.

You're forgetting that 50mm on a DSLR has an equivalent FOV as 80mm FF, which is particularly sweet for portraits. Bokeh becomes very important.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Another vote for the 17-40. I haven't been all that impressed with the 10-22; Canon's offerings at wide are pretty weak.

What are you shooting that'll need 200mm? I sincerely doubt you'll be shooting much telephoto. If you're in the cities, the 17-40 is probably all you'll need for the entire day. A 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 would fill out everything else. If you want to save some money consider buying used, or just wait for one of the Dell deals.

You might also want to consider Nikon as a cheaper route. Obviously the 18-70 isn't going to match up with L glass but it's a great lens for the price and it pretty much covers everything you'll need. Add a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and SB600/800 and you're set.

Shameless D70 plug

The 17-40mm lens is a great lens but I carried it all day at the San Diego Zoo recently and kept wishing I brought my 70-200mm lens.

Heh, that's because you were at a zoo. 40mm isn't going to cut it for any type of wildlife shooting (my cat included). I assume the OP isn't going to go wildlife shooting in Germany though. Or if he is, it'll be of the urban/female type, to which it's in his best interests to examine at closer distances.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Guh. I'm really not impressed by the bokeh of the 1.8. One of the reasons I jumped to 1.4, and it's still one of the weaker bokeh performers in my bag.

Then again 50mm and wider offer enough FOV that you really should be composing with backgrounds to give context to your subjects versus trying to isolate like you would with a telephoto, so the bokeh almost becomes a mute point.

You're forgetting that 50mm on a DSLR has an equivalent FOV as 80mm FF, which is particularly sweet for portraits. Bokeh becomes very important.

Exactly my point. I love this lens for portraits. :thumbsup:

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Not true, the 50mm f/1.4 is even better and it's under $400. I just picked one up about a month ago. Great lens, very sharp with excellent bokeh (which is something the f/1.8 lens isn't great at).

It's not any sharper though, which was my main point. It is faster and has better bokeh.

If he's on a budget, the 50/1.4 isn't practical compared to the 1.8. The money is better spent elsewhere.

No argument here. Besides, I?d be willing to bet that an amateur would not even notice the difference, which doesn't show up in every picture obviously.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Guh. I'm really not impressed by the bokeh of the 1.8. One of the reasons I jumped to 1.4, and it's still one of the weaker bokeh performers in my bag.

Then again 50mm and wider offer enough FOV that you really should be composing with backgrounds to give context to your subjects versus trying to isolate like you would with a telephoto, so the bokeh almost becomes a mute point.

You're forgetting that 50mm on a DSLR has an equivalent FOV as 80mm FF, which is particularly sweet for portraits. Bokeh becomes very important.

Lenses don't automatically change focal lengths because of crop factor, meaning you won't get the compression due to focal length as you would with an 85. That also means that if you try and use a 35 as a 50, you're going to run into distortion. With portraits think proportions, not crop.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Another vote for the 17-40. I haven't been all that impressed with the 10-22; Canon's offerings at wide are pretty weak.

What are you shooting that'll need 200mm? I sincerely doubt you'll be shooting much telephoto. If you're in the cities, the 17-40 is probably all you'll need for the entire day. A 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 would fill out everything else. If you want to save some money consider buying used, or just wait for one of the Dell deals.

You might also want to consider Nikon as a cheaper route. Obviously the 18-70 isn't going to match up with L glass but it's a great lens for the price and it pretty much covers everything you'll need. Add a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and SB600/800 and you're set.

Shameless D70 plug

The 17-40mm lens is a great lens but I carried it all day at the San Diego Zoo recently and kept wishing I brought my 70-200mm lens.

Heh, that's because you were at a zoo. 40mm isn't going to cut it for any type of wildlife shooting (my cat included). I assume the OP isn't going to go wildlife shooting in Germany though. Or if he is, it'll be of the urban/female type, to which it's in his best interests to examine at closer distances.

It was great for the giraffes and elephants but most of the time I was wishing for my 70-200. Really, both lenses would have been nice to have there.

From now on I'm carrying both when I go out with my camera. I'd still rather have it than not. Same thing if I were going abroad.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Guh. I'm really not impressed by the bokeh of the 1.8. One of the reasons I jumped to 1.4, and it's still one of the weaker bokeh performers in my bag.

Then again 50mm and wider offer enough FOV that you really should be composing with backgrounds to give context to your subjects versus trying to isolate like you would with a telephoto, so the bokeh almost becomes a mute point.

You're forgetting that 50mm on a DSLR has an equivalent FOV as 80mm FF, which is particularly sweet for portraits. Bokeh becomes very important.

Exactly my point. I love this lens for portraits. :thumbsup:

Although, now that I think it through, a FF would also display the same bokeh, just more of it. Besides, DOF is really a function of aperture to subject distance and not FL. IOW, I can shoot a 50mm lens with only a 6" DOF and a 200mm lens with a 60' DOF.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Another vote for the 17-40. I haven't been all that impressed with the 10-22; Canon's offerings at wide are pretty weak.

What are you shooting that'll need 200mm? I sincerely doubt you'll be shooting much telephoto. If you're in the cities, the 17-40 is probably all you'll need for the entire day. A 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 would fill out everything else. If you want to save some money consider buying used, or just wait for one of the Dell deals.

You might also want to consider Nikon as a cheaper route. Obviously the 18-70 isn't going to match up with L glass but it's a great lens for the price and it pretty much covers everything you'll need. Add a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and SB600/800 and you're set.

Shameless D70 plug

The 17-40mm lens is a great lens but I carried it all day at the San Diego Zoo recently and kept wishing I brought my 70-200mm lens.

Heh, that's because you were at a zoo. 40mm isn't going to cut it for any type of wildlife shooting (my cat included). I assume the OP isn't going to go wildlife shooting in Germany though. Or if he is, it'll be of the urban/female type, to which it's in his best interests to examine at closer distances.

It was great for the giraffes and elephants but most of the time I was wishing for my 70-200. Really, both lenses would have been nice to have there.

From now on I'm carrying both when I go out with my camera. I'd still rather have it than not. Same thing if I were going abroad.

A 70-200 is a lot to be just carrying around. I'm going to HK for xmas and I'm seriously considering leaving my 180 at home, just can't see much use for it. When I started off it was one of my favorite lenses but recently it's been resigned to my bag as a headshot/specialty lens. I used it at a performance this weekend and that was the 1st time it's even been on my camera in months.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Another vote for the 17-40. I haven't been all that impressed with the 10-22; Canon's offerings at wide are pretty weak.

What are you shooting that'll need 200mm? I sincerely doubt you'll be shooting much telephoto. If you're in the cities, the 17-40 is probably all you'll need for the entire day. A 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 would fill out everything else. If you want to save some money consider buying used, or just wait for one of the Dell deals.

You might also want to consider Nikon as a cheaper route. Obviously the 18-70 isn't going to match up with L glass but it's a great lens for the price and it pretty much covers everything you'll need. Add a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and SB600/800 and you're set.

Shameless D70 plug

The 17-40mm lens is a great lens but I carried it all day at the San Diego Zoo recently and kept wishing I brought my 70-200mm lens.

Heh, that's because you were at a zoo. 40mm isn't going to cut it for any type of wildlife shooting (my cat included). I assume the OP isn't going to go wildlife shooting in Germany though. Or if he is, it'll be of the urban/female type, to which it's in his best interests to examine at closer distances.

It was great for the giraffes and elephants but most of the time I was wishing for my 70-200. Really, both lenses would have been nice to have there.

From now on I'm carrying both when I go out with my camera. I'd still rather have it than not. Same thing if I were going abroad.

A 70-200 is a lot to be just carrying around. I'm going to HK for xmas and I'm seriously considering leaving my 180 at home, just can't see much use for it. When I started off it was one of my favorite lenses but recently it's been resigned to my bag as a headshot/specialty lens. I used it at a performance this weekend and that was the 1st time it's even been on my camera in months.

I was thinking 70-200 f/4 not the f/2.8 lens.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Guh. I'm really not impressed by the bokeh of the 1.8. One of the reasons I jumped to 1.4, and it's still one of the weaker bokeh performers in my bag.

Then again 50mm and wider offer enough FOV that you really should be composing with backgrounds to give context to your subjects versus trying to isolate like you would with a telephoto, so the bokeh almost becomes a mute point.

You're forgetting that 50mm on a DSLR has an equivalent FOV as 80mm FF, which is particularly sweet for portraits. Bokeh becomes very important.

Lenses don't automatically change focal lengths because of crop factor, meaning you won't get the compression due to focal length as you would with an 85. That also means that if you try and use a 35 as a 50, you're going to run into distortion. With portraits think proportions, not crop.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I said "equivalent FOV". A 1.6x crop camera at 50mm gives you the same FOV as a FF at 80mm. Assuming both camera sensors contain the same number of pixels, and the subject is the same fixed distance, both cameras will yield indistinguishable pictures. No "compression", no bs.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Another vote for the 17-40. I haven't been all that impressed with the 10-22; Canon's offerings at wide are pretty weak.

What are you shooting that'll need 200mm? I sincerely doubt you'll be shooting much telephoto. If you're in the cities, the 17-40 is probably all you'll need for the entire day. A 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 would fill out everything else. If you want to save some money consider buying used, or just wait for one of the Dell deals.

You might also want to consider Nikon as a cheaper route. Obviously the 18-70 isn't going to match up with L glass but it's a great lens for the price and it pretty much covers everything you'll need. Add a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and SB600/800 and you're set.

Shameless D70 plug

The 17-40mm lens is a great lens but I carried it all day at the San Diego Zoo recently and kept wishing I brought my 70-200mm lens.

Heh, that's because you were at a zoo. 40mm isn't going to cut it for any type of wildlife shooting (my cat included). I assume the OP isn't going to go wildlife shooting in Germany though. Or if he is, it'll be of the urban/female type, to which it's in his best interests to examine at closer distances.

It was great for the giraffes and elephants but most of the time I was wishing for my 70-200. Really, both lenses would have been nice to have there.

From now on I'm carrying both when I go out with my camera. I'd still rather have it than not. Same thing if I were going abroad.

A 70-200 is a lot to be just carrying around. I'm going to HK for xmas and I'm seriously considering leaving my 180 at home, just can't see much use for it. When I started off it was one of my favorite lenses but recently it's been resigned to my bag as a headshot/specialty lens. I used it at a performance this weekend and that was the 1st time it's even been on my camera in months.

I was thinking 70-200 f/4 not the f/2.8 lens.

neither of them are light however the f/4 is lighter, with a backpack style camera bag you can eaisily carry it and its not very noticable, neither of them are as heavy as my 100-300 f/4 and i take that most places, never know ehen im gonna nee dit

 

[alphatarget1]

thanks for all the responses. I'd much rather stick to as few lens as possible (carrying so much can be a pain). How about 17-85mm? I'll probably pick up the 50mm f1.8 also.

No Nikon, sorry Nikon fanboys/girls I want a canon...

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
thanks for all the responses. I'd much rather stick to as few lens as possible (carrying so much can be a pain). How about 17-85mm? I'll probably pick up the 50mm f1.8 also.

No Nikon, sorry Nikon fanboys/girls I want a canon...

I have the 17-85IS. It's a bit pricy (for what it is) but keep your eye out for lens deals from Dell. I picked it up for ~500 and sold my 28-135IS. The 17-85 is a much more useful walk-around lens. With the 28-135, you often run into situations where you can't back up any farther to frame your subjects.

Also, the current rumor is that Canon is releasing a FF 13mp camera at the end of this month for around 2.5-3K. This might drive the demand for ef-s lenses down and subsequently the price by the time January rolls around.

 

[alphatarget1]

that would be awesome, 750 camera, 500-600 lens, and i'll buy a polarizer too!

when does dell's next quarter end? that's usually when all the deals pop up.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
thanks for all the responses. I'd much rather stick to as few lens as possible (carrying so much can be a pain). How about 17-85mm? I'll probably pick up the 50mm f1.8 also.

No Nikon, sorry Nikon fanboys/girls I want a canon...

I have the 17-85IS. It's a bit pricy (for what it is) but keep your eye out for lens deals from Dell. I picked it up for ~500 and sold my 28-135IS. The 17-85 is a much more useful walk-around lens. With the 28-135, you often run into situations where you can't back up any farther to frame your subjects.

Also, the current rumor is that Canon is releasing a FF 13mp camera at the end of this month for around 2.5-3K. This might drive the demand for ef-s lenses down and subsequently the price by the time January rolls around.

:Q Oooh!!! That might be my next camera! Droool...

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
thanks for all the responses. I'd much rather stick to as few lens as possible (carrying so much can be a pain). How about 17-85mm? I'll probably pick up the 50mm f1.8 also.

No Nikon, sorry Nikon fanboys/girls I want a canon...

I have the 17-85IS. It's a bit pricy (for what it is) but keep your eye out for lens deals from Dell. I picked it up for ~500 and sold my 28-135IS. The 17-85 is a much more useful walk-around lens. With the 28-135, you often run into situations where you can't back up any farther to frame your subjects.

Also, the current rumor is that Canon is releasing a FF 13mp camera at the end of this month for around 2.5-3K. This might drive the demand for ef-s lenses down and subsequently the price by the time January rolls around.

:Q Oooh!!! That might be my next camera! Droool...

8/23 is the announcement date.
Rumor

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
thanks for all the responses. I'd much rather stick to as few lens as possible (carrying so much can be a pain). How about 17-85mm? I'll probably pick up the 50mm f1.8 also.

No Nikon, sorry Nikon fanboys/girls I want a canon...

I have the 17-85IS. It's a bit pricy (for what it is) but keep your eye out for lens deals from Dell. I picked it up for ~500 and sold my 28-135IS. The 17-85 is a much more useful walk-around lens. With the 28-135, you often run into situations where you can't back up any farther to frame your subjects.

Also, the current rumor is that Canon is releasing a FF 13mp camera at the end of this month for around 2.5-3K. This might drive the demand for ef-s lenses down and subsequently the price by the time January rolls around.

:Q Oooh!!! That might be my next camera! Droool...

8/23 is the announcement date.
Rumor

Yeah, I checked out my favorite Canon forum and quickly found that link.

Thanks though!

 

[Doggiedog]

As recommended earlier, I'd bring along a 50mm 1.4 lens. I end up trying to use my 50mm more than my 17-85mm just because the PQ is so much better and the bokeh makes pictures look outstanding.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
No Nikon, sorry Nikon fanboys/girls I want a canon...

shame i am all for canon (i also own a powershot s500 and a canon S2 IS. my husband has a powershot s200 and a G5) but nikon does amazingly well in the SLR league.

when it comes to point & shoot, i'm all for canon. but for SLR, i'm a nikon girl


i wish there was like a 10-400mm lens with a good high aperature number. that would be super cool i'd be willing to pay a lot for it. then i wouldn't have to lug around multiple lenses and worry which one to use next.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: tami

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
No Nikon, sorry Nikon fanboys/girls I want a canon...

shame i am all for canon (i also own a powershot s500 and a canon S2 IS. my husband has a powershot s200 and a G5) but nikon does amazingly well in the SLR league.

when it comes to point & shoot, i'm all for canon. but for SLR, i'm a nikon girl


i wish there was like a 10-400mm lens with a good high aperature number. that would be super cool i'd be willing to pay a lot for it. then i wouldn't have to lug around multiple lenses and worry which one to use next.

Yeah, that's why I have been leaning towards a 17-85mm IS USM lens from Canon, isn't a 10-400mm just not possible to make? I don't know that much about lens design.

I'm looking forward to being able to add filters on the lens and stuff and have more leverage controlling the camera manually. My powershot S50 has served me well and the manual settings rule but in the end it is just too limiting with a 35-105mm, f2.8-4.9 lens. crazy noise with sensitivity over ISO 100.

 

[tami]

if it were possible, it would probably be available

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: tami
if it were possible, it would probably be available

I'm sure it's possible but not practical. Consider that a Canon 400mm f/2.8 weighs 12lbs. Then add in the extra weight necessary for a 40x times zoom and you would probably be looking at least a 16-30 lb lens. Of course, they could make the lens slower and lighter but also consider that the image quality on a 40x zoom would definitely suck. Who in their right mind would want to carry around a heavy poor quality lens when you could get by with 2 or 3 more manageable lenses to cover that range, all of which offer superior quality?