Camera suggestions Photo
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- vaxorcist0
The 40mm pancake lens is nice, and would do nicely for the types of compositions you showed in the black and white series above.... it is, like all non-zoom lenses a prime lens, but it is not that piricey or glamorous. It is very small and may cause you to go minimal and carry your camera more with just the 40....
Just one prime lens can help a photographer grow by learning how to see clearly and previsualize and work fast within limitations...
Also the 40 is enough wider on a 60D to be more forgiving tgan the 50
- Continuity0
In all fairness, I've been rocking the 1-lens set-up for almost a year (7D/50 1.4) and I really like it for the reasons stated above: it makes me focus on and work for the shot. The limitations of the focal length (and crop factor) are really a blessing, insofar that they force me to be more creative within the confines.
That said, yeah, I'm going to want a couple of new L primes in the future to cover both wider and longer focal lengths. The full-frame body will come later.
- ok_not_ok0
I'm getting the Sony A7r for me Birfffday. Already bought the Leica and Pentax lens adapters...lol
Main complaints with the A7r is the loud shutter, hit or miss focussing and battery life.
- vaxorcist0
hit or miss focussing doesn't bother you?
- vaxorcist0
anyone know if the A7R shutter is louder than a nikon like the D700 or D7000?
- more importantly, would someone hear it, say, through a plate glass window while showering?hereswhatidid
- ok_not_ok0
not d700...
- benfal990
Is there any big differences between pictures taken with normal standard Canon lenses and the one that have a red ring (pro) ??
- Big difference. But the standard 50mm 1.4 is amazing! and the 85mm 1.8. as well.ok_not_ok
- yes some considerable diff between "L" and non L. But a few lenses come close to L quality. like the ones mentionedHijoDMaite
- all "L" are weather sealed and built out of metal tooHijoDMaite
- formed0
Lenses are everything, though. You (generally) get what you pay for. They will also last a long time, while the camera body will be outdated in 6 months.
That could be argued, of course, as many of the Sigma/Tamron lenses 'perform' as good as Nikkor or L glass.
Personally, I wouldn't buy the Sony to use with the adapter (the adapter is another $400). That kinda defeatst he purpose of having a light camera, imho.
If you only want small/light, take a look at the Olympus (in addition to the Fuji). The ergonomics/fit in your hand is pretty much the best I've ever felt.
- deathboy0
I'd say go with a sigma 18-35 1.8. Sharp. Fast. Lens of the year. I just bought one off ebay from a dealer who just got them in stock. Now there's only one left! See a lot of people talking about primes and the thing is suppose to be as sharp or sharper than most primes in its range.
- like bought i mean i clicked buy before posting. I didn't want to mention it until i ordered mine :)deathboy
- Based on what I've seen online, it's not sharper than primes.nb
- dxomark suggests otherwise. stacks up better than a 50 1.2. anyways guess its already sold.deathboy
- but tough to comapre a zoom to a prime. probably have to choose a focal length and stopdeathboy
- teh0
- nthkl0
I'd get rid of those cheap lenses and grab an L series lens and try it with your body. Personally I feel like it's more about the glass than the sensor. You can do a lot with an economy dslr body.
- autoflavour0
Save some pennies, buy an L lens.. but make sure its F2.8
the F4 are nice, but if you are serious, F2.8 is a must
- Continuity0
Benny, in your shoes, instead of the 24-105, I would consider getting either:
- 14mm L*
- 16-35mm L*
- 17-40mm L
- EF-S 17-55mm*Be prepared to fork out a lot of dosh for these two, new.
The reason being that the 60D is a cropped-sensored animal (1.6x FOVCF), so the 24-105 at the low end reason isn't going to be that wide at all, more like 38mm. Not exacty great for these wide landscapes you want to shoot.
All of the glass I've listed is superb, even the EF-S one; most reviews I've read say it should be an L lens, the image quality is that good. The downside to that EF-S lens is that if ever you decide to go full-frame Canon (5D3, 6D) you can't use it.
That said, the most affordable of the L lenses above is the 17-40mm. Great value for money, that one but - like all zooms - barrel distortion can be a cunt at the low end. You have to spend a bit of time in post correcting it.
- Also, unless I'm very much mistaken, the EF-S 17-55 isn't weather-sealed.Continuity
- formed0
I'd still get the 24-105 and plan on upgrading to full frame sometime soon. I know a bunch of pros that shoot with the 24-105.
I shot fashion with a 28-74 on a crop sensor for two years with no problems.
But what Cont is saying is something to consider, if you don't plan on an upgraded body in the next year or so.
- Continuity0
Alternately, save just a couple of months longer, and get either a 6D with the 24-105 as a kit lens, or a 5D3 with the same lens. That way, you get all of the benefits of having a general purpose lens like the 24-105, with all of benefits of having a full frame body at the 24mm focal length.
- I like that suggestion...no idea how much it costs, but 1 good body w/ 1 good lens is the best start, imhoformed
- It's the decision I wish I'd made before I got my 7D. :\Continuity
- benfal990
- for full-frame 5D/6D/etc this is very nice walk-around lens, but not a "bokeh" lens like the 50mm 1.8vaxorcist
- I have this. It's super heavy, but so is the 5D. I like how wide angle it is at 24mm.nikdaum
- 24-70 is bomb.. i love mineautoflavour