Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: First lenses for 5D?  (Read 7693 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7966



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2006, 02:50:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm perplexed by the Nikon D200 suggestions seeing that your primary focus is landscapes. I own a 5D that was purchased specifically for landscapes (including stitched panos), fine art images and to a lesser degree, wildlife images. I can't imagine going for the less than full frame sensor and fewer pixels offered by the D200 if you want big, detailed landscapes. The image quality of the 5d is truly outstanding - the camera is, to me, worth every penny.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My personnal view is that:

- the D200 will have more DoF thanks to its smaller sensor, which is key for landscape,
- the more uniform image quality you get from using DX lenses on an APS sensor helps getting very high quality stitches,
- the DX lenses like the 12-24 are typically lighter and smaller than the equivalenet Canon 16-35 or 17-40, which is important for backpacking,
- the APS sensor will make your long lenses behave like if they were 1.5 times longer, meaning that a 200-400 AF-S VR on a D200 will cover everything from 300 to 600 mm at a fraction of the cost and weight. This is a huge plus for wildlife, enough by itself to justify buying an APS body IMHO,
- the D200 is more rugged than the 5D, and this might or might not be important depending on your type of shooting,
- low light AF appears to be more reliable and accurate on the D200, which helps for all these pre-dawn images where it is hard to manual focus,
- the price is much lower,

Then it all depends, I think that the 5D is an excellent camera, but there are very good reasons to prefer a D200 over a 5D, and landscape/wildlife are probably the 2 applications where the D200 has the most obvious value IMHO.

Regards,
Bernard
« Last Edit: January 27, 2006, 02:53:42 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2006, 11:54:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My personnal view is that:

- the D200 will have more DoF thanks to its smaller sensor, which is key for landscape,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree so often with exaggerated claims for advantages of larger formats that for balance, I will disagree at least partially with this claim for a smaller format. Comparing the D200 to the 5D, the latter can match DOF with the smaller by using an aperture ratio that is larger in proportion to the increase in focal length: say greater by the format factor of 1.5x, or about one stop. At worst, this requires about doubling ISO speed, if maintaining shutter speed is important, and with sufficiently motion-free landscapes and a good tripod, one could use minimum ISO speed in either case, probably giving all the advantage to the larger sensor.

So the question of an advantage to the D200 over the 5D comes down to comparing image quality at the different ISO speeds that give equal DOF and shutter speed. For example, is the D200 at ISO 100 better than the 5D at ISO 200?
Logged
akclimber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2006, 01:25:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My personnal view is that:

- the D200 will have more DoF thanks to its smaller sensor, which is key for landscape,
- the more uniform image quality you get from using DX lenses on an APS sensor helps getting very high quality stitches,
- the DX lenses like the 12-24 are typically lighter and smaller than the equivalenet Canon 16-35 or 17-40, which is important for backpacking,
- the APS sensor will make your long lenses behave like if they were 1.5 times longer, meaning that a 200-400 AF-S VR on a D200 will cover everything from 300 to 600 mm at a fraction of the cost and weight. This is a huge plus for wildlife, enough by itself to justify buying an APS body IMHO,
- the D200 is more rugged than the 5D, and this might or might not be important depending on your type of shooting,
- low light AF appears to be more reliable and accurate on the D200, which helps for all these pre-dawn images where it is hard to manual focus,
- the price is much lower,

Then it all depends, I think that the 5D is an excellent camera, but there are very good reasons to prefer a D200 over a 5D, and landscape/wildlife are probably the 2 applications where the D200 has the most obvious value IMHO.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hi Bernard,

I agree that the D200 would be a better choice for critters.  In fact, the D200 is very much the camera I was hoping Canon would introduce, along with the 5D - I would have purchased both :-)  I fully realize that the 5D is not the best critter camera but that's not the OP's main interest (altho it is one of mine but I can live with the 5D for the time being).

I think the DOF agrument is a bit overblown.  I can get all the DOF I need with my FF 5D and the appropriate lenses and aperture.

You raise a good point about high quality stitchess from the D200 + Nikon's highly regarded WA lenses.  But (there's always a "but"), I still rather have more pixels available with which to stitch.

I don't have any evidence that the D200 is more rugged than the 5D - maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  I sure don't want to test that out :-)  All I can say is that the 5D is very well built has has withstood many trying situations without missing a beat.

About low light AF, well I don't own a D200 but I can tell you that my 5D's low light AF is very accurate and fast - *much* better than previous non-1 series Canon DSLRs.  And since the OP's main interest is landscapes, low light AF performance may not be a factor anyway.

One potential pro 5D pointg is that it seems to have a bit better dynamic range from what I've read.  That, of course, is important to landscape folks.

All-in-all, both cameras are, I'm sure, wonderful to work with and as I said, the D200 certainly offers all the features on my critter camera wish list but for the fact that it's not Canon (no way am I giving up my image stabilized tele photos!).  For landscapes tho, I'd stick with FF and more pixels.

Cheers and enjoy your weekend!
Logged
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2006, 03:15:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Aren't you guys ignoring the difference in enlargement factor between the 5D & D200?

In order for the Nikon to generate a better picture it has to have a lens that outresolves the lens on the Canon by a large enough margin to overcome both the enlargement factor and the fact that the 5D will be capturing more pixels/data of the subject.

The only way the D200 can win that competition is if you are requiring the 5D and D200 users to use the same lens and stand in the same place for a telephoto shot, and the 5D image is then cropped down to match the same image as the D200 image.   (Which makes the 5D a 5-6mp 1.6x crop camera)

This seems to be universally ignored in internet photography discussions, not sure why..
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7966



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2006, 09:18:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Aren't you guys ignoring the difference in enlargement factor between the 5D & D200?

In order for the Nikon to generate a better picture it has to have a lens that outresolves the lens on the Canon by a large enough margin to overcome both the enlargement factor and the fact that the 5D will be capturing more pixels/data of the subject.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi there,

There is no discussing the fact that the sensor of the 5D has 1.3 more pixels than that of the D200, so I won't go over that part.

On the hypothesis that the D200 requires higher definition lenses than the 5D, this has been discussed at nauseum here and in other places, and the conclusion is that current lenses offer plenty enough definition in their central parts, but fail to do so in the corners.

Based on this, as well as on numerous user reports, it appears that FF bodies are actually more demanding for wide lenses than APS bodies for a given sensor pixel count.

This will change at some point of time in the future, but we are seemingly still very far from that.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Klaus W. Saue
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2006, 11:25:35 AM »
ReplyReply

If you're doing a lot of landscape work, you might consider this combination:

1. 24-70/2.8
2. 70-200/4
3.1.4 converter (optional)

I'm using these lenses on a 1D MkII and on a 5D, with very good results.
The 24-70 feels a bit unbalanced on the 5D when shooting hand held , but you would use a tripod most of the time for landscapes, so this should not be an issue.

Just an idea.
Logged
seaum
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2006, 01:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a 5D and have been contemplating a couple of lenses to provide me with a nice travel package for anything from landscapes to telephoto shots.

I agree with peripatetic, I just picked up a used 70-300 IS DO and was thinking of adding the 24-105 IS for a pair of zooms. I can't afford the 35 1.4 just yet, so I would use my 50 1.8 for a fast prime.

Jack
Logged
nareshtrao
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2006, 12:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

My two bits:

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM,
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM,
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM,
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
Logged


Regards
Naresh Rao
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2006, 12:52:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd skip the 24-105 for the 5D personally.  (And did)

There have been too many complaints about it's corner issues on the wide end.  (Not mention the flare issue when it first came out)

People are always crying for wider zoom ranges but IMO on that lens Canon went too far, it's inexcusable at that price range IMO and maybe shouldn't have been given an L designation.

If you have to have an "L" zoom why not get the 24-70.
Logged
Caracalla
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2006, 04:20:03 PM »
ReplyReply

My choice would be to go with one zoom of your preference and
definitely visit to Photokina. At least if you spend some money
there, it could be somewhat justified. On the other hand leave
some options don't spend everything just yet.

Regards
Caracalla
Logged
jimhuber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2006, 04:23:47 PM »
ReplyReply

What size prints do you want to make, and at what resolution?

8 megapixels from the Rebel XT, 20D, or 30D looks fantastic up to 10x15 inches (about 230 pixels per inch) and still quite good at 12x18 (about 190 ppi). Upgrading to the 5D gives you the ability to go to 12x18 at a bit over 240 ppi and 10x15 at almost 300 ppi. The full-frame sensor also gives shallower depth-of-field for the same angle-of-view at the same distance, and that may be good (portraits) or bad (landscapes).

If you're set on getting a 5D, 24mm may be wide enough for everything you want to do. So the 24-105L and a telephoto zoom may be everything you need. I really like my 70-300DO zoom, but if you're willing to pack the weight and scare off subjects with a big white lens, the 70-200L IS plus a pair of teleconverters is a great, flexible solution. If you really need wider, the 17-40 is much less expensive than the 16-35 and apparently just as good. Primes are better, of course, both in image quality and wider maximum aperture.

If 8 megapixels is enough, the EF-S 10-22 is a great lens with the same field of view as the 16-35, and the 17-85IS is also very good, though it has significant distortion at the wide end. I also really like the 28-135IS on a reduced-frame camera as a 45-216 equivalent zoom, and the soft edges and corners you get on full frame aren't a problem on reduced frame. The telephoto zooms that start at 70mm are a pretty tight minimum in close quarters, but the reach with 1.6x cropping factor is wonderful at long distances.

I have a 5D and a Rebel XT.
Logged
r42ogn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47



« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2006, 11:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

To change to a negative tack, avoid the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0 Asperical HSM EX (I think that's all it's names!).  Two reasons (1) it's  very dust prone and whilst the cleaning is competitively priced nearly 80 ($140 US) is still a lot of money and (2) the quality is nothing really special.  Fortunately I mainly use teles for sport and portraiture so it hasn't hurt me to much, but a bad buy none the less.






Quote
Hi all,

(I'm new to the board, and relatively to photography, so be gentle ;-)

I'm just progressing from a digicam (Fuji S7000) to a DSLR and am considering a 5D. My main interest in photography is landscapes (am I in the right place? ;-), especially 'big' shots and panoramas. I also seem to often end up hiking to get these shots (8hrs up and down a mountain in Chile recently).

I've a lot to learn still, but people seem to like what I've done to date so I want to step up to the next level (hence purchasing a DSLR). I've had the use of a friend's Nikon D100 for a while, and therefore I guess I'm balanced between a D200, 30D (what/when-ever that may be) and the 5D and I'm thinking that as I can stretch (due to some good luck) to the 5D, I might as well go for a full-frame sensor now rather than go down the EF-S route and regret it in the future. I'd also rather spend a bit more money on a few quality lenses initially rather than buying a wide selection of cheaper ones. Hence (finally) to my question!

Given my preference for a few high-quality lens, bias towards landscapes (and wide-angles), and desire for low weight I'm trying to decide between the following options for my first lenses:

(1) 17-40 L USM + 24-105 L IS USM
Cheapest option, good coverage of shorter focal lengths, but not much reach for the odd wildlife shot, which I could live without, some concern about the quality of the 24-105?

(2) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM
Better reach, nice & small & light weight for the range, but with a 'hole' in the coverage.

(3) 17-40 L USM + 70-300 DO IS USM + 50 f1.4 USM
Nice fast prime to fill the gap, would need different filter sizes for the 50 (minor quibble!)

(4) All three zooms
Full coverage, but too expensive initially, and possibly too heavy.

Or some other combination? Or some other lens I haven't considered? I guess I could live without the 17-40 but I had a 12-24DX lens on the D100 (approx 18-36 equiv) and loved the fov it gave. Didn't take that many shots with it right down at 12 (18) but I think I might feel limited with just the 24-105.

I've got a two week trip shooting in the scottish highlands coming up so I'd like to get the kit and get familiar with it soonish.

Sorry for the long first post!!! Thanks for any thoughts...

Cheers
Rob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2006, 12:20:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What size prints do you want to make, and at what resolution?

8 megapixels from the Rebel XT, 20D, or 30D looks fantastic up to 10x15 inches (about 230 pixels per inch) and still quite good at 12x18 (about 190 ppi). Upgrading to the 5D gives you the ability to go to 12x18 at a bit over 240 ppi and 10x15 at almost 300 ppi. The full-frame sensor also gives shallower depth-of-field for the same angle-of-view at the same distance, and that may be good (portraits) or bad (landscapes).

If you're set on getting a 5D, 24mm may be wide enough for everything you want to do. So the 24-105L and a telephoto zoom may be everything you need. I really like my 70-300DO zoom, but if you're willing to pack the weight and scare off subjects with a big white lens, the 70-200L IS plus a pair of teleconverters is a great, flexible solution. If you really need wider, the 17-40 is much less expensive than the 16-35 and apparently just as good. Primes are better, of course, both in image quality and wider maximum aperture.

If 8 megapixels is enough, the EF-S 10-22 is a great lens with the same field of view as the 16-35, and the 17-85IS is also very good, though it has significant distortion at the wide end. I also really like the 28-135IS on a reduced-frame camera as a 45-216 equivalent zoom, and the soft edges and corners you get on full frame aren't a problem on reduced frame. The telephoto zooms that start at 70mm are a pretty tight minimum in close quarters, but the reach with 1.6x cropping factor is wonderful at long distances.

I have a 5D and a Rebel XT.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You speak the truth!

The perfect solution is not yet born: 20-60mm, f/2.0, small, light, fixed length, non-rotating filter mount, IS, L-class weather sealing, bokeh to die for, perfect optics in every respect.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 12:21:31 PM by boku » Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2006, 01:09:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Stop it!

I just wet myself....
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
SJM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2006, 02:47:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Post moved to other question on 5D.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2006, 03:59:26 PM by SJM » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad