Canon 7D vs 5D MKII?

[Rojin]

^^^
Sorry Lol
But what's really useful, is to be able to select aperture priority, and set your minimum shutter speed in auto ISO. That way you don't have to worry about too slow shutter speed when in the church, you don't have to remember to lower your ISO when you step out the church, and your always using the lowest ISO that you need.

Yeah I really do miss AutoISO, hell I miss just being able to see the ISO setting in the viewfinder as you're changing it!

Haven't had much chance to run it in due to the never ending rain, and haven't got a wedding until Aug, but from messing around indoors so far it seems pretty good. One thing I have noticed though, is I need to watch my vertical lines, as due to the wider angle, pictures can look wonky pretty easily...

From today...

Your dog definitely poses! The level in the EVF on the X100 is nice for getting things level. I didn't think I'd like the EVF but it's not too bad in use.

I picked up a nearly new 35mm f2 for £175. It's a small plastic lens with trademark busy bee AF, but it's surprisingly sharp wide open. Bokeh is a bit nervous though (like the 50mm f1.8) It'll do until I get the 35L, rumours of the Sigma FF 35mm have gone quiet as have the 35L mkII, but I won't have money for it until after the summmer. Although I'm still tempted by the 135L!


Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

 

[An Exception]

^^^
Not bad, although I do see what you mean about the bokeh highlights.
Still, it looks like a better option than the Nikon 35 F2, which is fairly soft wide open, and has hexagonal bokeh.

I was also waiting on the new Sigma, but as like you say, talk went silent, so I decided to opt for the 35g. Apparently the 135L is an astounding lens, so tbh I'd pickup whichever lens is likely to spend the most time on your camera.

 

[alexthecheese]

So, guys. What lenses should I be getting?

If I said Canon 550d and I had £700 for lenses, what should I get? Either prime stuff, or a zoom stuff?

Would the prime route of a:

30mm 1.4 Sigma, £300
50mm 1.8 Canon, £80
85mm 1.8 Canon, £280; Total £660, maybe a bit less

Would that be worth it? It does mean nothing particularly wide, and nothing particularly long, and nothing in between.

Alternatively:

Canon 17-55mm, for £660, and nothing else, or

Sigma 17-70mm for £295. That would leave quite a bit more for a 50mm 1.8 and something else. It's not as sharp as the Canon 17-55mm though, but would I notice it? EDIT... in the corners it looks pretty poor.

And what about Nikon D5100? I'm not sure about the D5100. The camera is a bit more expensive - actually only £20... interesting - but lenses seem way more expensive as I'd need the AF-S ones I believe. For example:

35mm 1.8 AF-S DX, £158 (but DX only? i.e. crop only?)
50mm 1.8 AF-S, £169
85mm 1.8 AF-S G, £409, total £736

There is also the 17-70mm 2.8-4 available for the Nikon also, at the same price of £295. Perhaps I start with that on a Nikon, and chuck in a prime?

Please don't hurt me.

 

[An Exception]

So, guys. What lenses should I be getting?

If I said Canon 550d and I had £700 for lenses, what should I get? Either prime stuff, or a zoom stuff?

Would the prime route of a:

30mm 1.4 Sigma, £300
50mm 1.8 Canon, £80
85mm 1.8 Canon, £280; Total £660, maybe a bit less

Would that be worth it? It does mean nothing particularly wide, and nothing particularly long, and nothing in between.

Alternatively:

Canon 17-55mm, for £660, and nothing else, or

Sigma 17-70mm for £295. That would leave quite a bit more for a 50mm 1.8 and something else. It's not as sharp as the Canon 17-55mm though, but would I notice it?

And what about Nikon D5100? I'm not sure about the D5100. The camera is a bit more expensive - actually only £20... interesting - but lenses seem way more expensive as I'd need the AF-S ones I believe. For example:

35mm 1.8 AF-S DX, £158 (but DX only? i.e. crop only?)
50mm 1.8 AF-S, £169
85mm 1.8 AF-S G, £409, total £736

There is also the 17-70mm 2.8-4 available for the Nikon also, at the same price of £295. Perhaps I start with that on a Nikon, and chuck in a prime?

Please don't hurt me.

D5100 + Prime option
Yes the lenses are more expensive, but they are also much more modern/better. Also, leave out the 50mm if you want to save money as the focal lengths are all a bit too close, a 35 & 85 will work well together.

Then save for a decent UWA lens, something like a Tokina lens.

I still recommend considering a full frame option though tbh, even if you only get one prime to begin with...

 

[D.P.]

You need to decide if you want prime lenses or a zoom. I don't really reccomend having only primes unless you know what you are doing and know what you are going to find to photograph. I think you will find a zoom much easier to get along wit initially, primes a can be added later as you gain confidence, know what you need and have the finances.

With your suggested prime setup for example you are completely missing anything at the wide end and anything at the moderate tele end, and these are the 2 ends that I use 95% of the time. he middle focal lengths tend to make for boring composition in my work, but can be essential for some portraiture or wedding type work.

On crop having something in the 15/16mm range is critical, as is something in the 135-150mm range. Of course for wildlife I need longer but for general photography I will need the 2 ends covered. I like going out with a 10-200mm and a 70-200mm as a 2 lens setup, with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX as the mid range option when the ocasion arises.

TBH, with the Nikon setup I am really impressed by the 18-105mm VR, it is incredibly sharp and has has a very handy range. I prefer the 16mm wide end on my 16-85 which is why I won that lens. Then 1-2 fast primes compliment the slower zoom perfectly, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is a wonderfully sharp and vibrant lens.

other considerations would be either the Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 which are very good value for money.


The Nikon primes you selected are all new, very, very sharp and are excellent lenses. They appear more expensive because they are new, not because they have AF-S (which costs but a few quid). There are also diffeences in quality relative the Canons, e.g. the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S is much better optically than the Canon, i think you would be looking at getting the Canon 50mm f.1,4, but even then I hear that the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than the Canon, and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is optically better than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.

Similarly, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is optically much better than the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. it is a DX lens (IMPORTANTLY so is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 17-55), but it does work OK on FF, especially in 1.2x crop mode. But I don't see this as a consideration, you are buying a crop camera so owning a crop lens makes sense. If you were to ever move to a FF camera just sell the crop lenses, the Nikon 35mm DX holds its value very well.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
On the flip side of what DP said, prime lenses will help you learn the art of photography much more, they keep you moving your feet to find the best angle, will enable shallower DOF, or shooting in lower light, or better IQ.

When using a zoom you tend to stay planted, and personally I became lazy, and being lazy doesn't do your photography much good.
Conversely zooms are ideal when you need practicality and versatility from a single lens.

So with that in mind I would get the following:
35mm 1.8g
85mm 1.8g
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

 

[D.P.]

I certainly agree that with zooms you can become lazy and primes force you to move and think about compositions. But the flip side is that it is more effort to change lens than focal lengths, and people using primes tend not to swap lenses on a shot-by-shot basis and will simply move position to get the subject rather than thinking about what the best focal length is to get the desired perspective.

What I tend to do with zoom lens is use the 2 extremes, and occasionally a mid focal length. So on a crop lens something like 16mm, 24/30mm and 50/70mm being used. I treat a zoom lens like the combination of 2 or 3 prime lenses that have the benefits of not having to swap lenses. I think Leica have a lens which is basically as I described, 3 different focal lengths in a single lens.

I still suggest that middle focal lengths tend to make boring compositions for many subject like landscapes, still life, architecture and although are excellent at portrait/wedding type work the addition of wider and more tele photos to a set adds a lot of interest.

 

[An Exception]

I certainly agree that with zooms you can become lazy and primes force you to move and think about compositions. But the flip side is that it is more effort to change lens than focal lengths, and people using primes tend not to swap lenses on a shot-by-shot basis and will simply move position to get the subject rather than thinking about what the best focal length is to get the desired perspective.

Yes, it can be a pain at times changing lenses, but I use a think tank belt, and changes don't take longer than 4 seconds. But ideally I will be using two camera's, one with a 35 & the other with the 85.
I don't necessarily agree with the lazy perspective thing, for instance the perspective of my 85 and 35 is wildly different, thus it is a very fundamental aspect in my decision making.

 

[jonneymendoza]

^^^
On the flip side of what DP said, prime lenses will help you learn the art of photography much more, they keep you moving your feet to find the best angle, will enable shallower DOF, or shooting in lower light, or better IQ.

When using a zoom you tend to stay planted, and personally I became lazy, and being lazy doesn't do your photography much good.
Conversely zooms are ideal when you need practicality and versatility from a single lens.

So with that in mind I would get the following:
35mm 1.8g
85mm 1.8g
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

Anotehr tip is to shoot film instead. you learn a lot from doing that. u think before u shoot

 

[alexthecheese]

Thanks again for the considered replies guys, much appreciated.

I think I've landed on the Nikon (wrote Nokia there first time ) D5100 with a zoom and a couple of primes.

I am thinking a choice of the 18-105/17-50/17-70, with a 35mm and 85mm prime. Nothing fantastically long, but I am sure that will be enough to keep me entertained for a good while.

Do you think I should go for focal length over aperture, with regard to the 18-105 vs the 17-50/17-70mm?

Also, sounds like I should go for the Nikon 35mm 1.8 rather than the Sigma 30mm 1.4? I'll lose a bit of aperture and width, but gain sharpness and about £150 in my pocket.

Would I notice the difference between 1.4 aperture and 1.8? From what I've read, that's about 2/3rds of a stop? So, if I were shooting at 1.4 I could get away with ISO 2600ish rather than ISO 3200, all other things equal? Is that right? Doesn't sound like much.

So...

D5100, £400 (girlfriend is paying for this )
Nikkor AF-S 85mm £410 (didn't realise it was that much, must've been looking at the AF )
Nikon AF-S 35mm F1.8 DX prime £158.00
Nikon AF-S DX 18-105mm £226...

£794 for lenses alone. Hmm.

 

[An Exception]

£794 seems allot, but if you got the cheaper 85, you'l likely only upgrade to the afs later, and thus it'l cost more in the long run.
If anything I would leave off the zoom for now, see how you like the primes, then look at getting a zoom once you have a better understanding of photography.

As for getting the Sigma or Nikon, I'd get the Nikon in this case, as Sigma sometimes have some AF issues, especially with older lenses, I'v never tried the sigma 30 so it may be ok in that regard. As for the aperture difference, I don't think 1.4 vs 1.8 is that big a deal, but then again every little helps...

Below is a couple of pictures taken with the Nikon 35mm 1.8 + D7000 (same sensor as D5100).

 

[alexthecheese]

Looks great. How far away from her were you when you took those photos? This is how clueless I am, just for reference.

So stick with the 85mm then. Do Nikon do a non-DX 35mm 1.8? Getting confused a bit with their lenses, looks to me as though the only FX one is a 35mm 1.4. No 1.8?

Can you stick up a picture with the 85mm, maybe even do a comparison against the 35mm? Tell me where to go if that's asking too much.

I can save £25 by buying the 18-105mm as a kit lens, so that's something I guess if I went down that route.

 

[D.P.]

Looks great. How far away from her were you when you took those photos? This is how clueless I am, just for reference.

So stick with the 85mm then. Do Nikon do a non-DX 35mm 1.8? Getting confused a bit with their lenses, looks to me as though the only FX one is a 35mm 1.4. No 1.8?

Can you stick up a picture with the 85mm, maybe even do a comparison against the 35mm? Tell me where to go if that's asking too much.

I can save £25 by buying the 18-105mm as a kit lens, so that's something I guess if I went down that route.

TBH I would stick with the 35mm f/1.8 DX prime lens combined with the 18-105mm kit lens. Yes, the 35mm f/1.8 is a crop lens, so is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. the Nikon is much better optically and much cheaper = no brainier.

This forum has a bias against kit lenses, which is probably partially attributed to the poor quality of older Canon kit lenses and that there is a disproportionate number of people that do portraiture and desire faster primes. However, Nikon Kit lenses have been very strong for a long long time, even their first kit lens for DSLRs, the 18-70mm, was extremely good. The 18-105mm is tack sharp, has a very useful focal range, usable VR and reasonable AF. It is one of the best value for money lenses around. My GF uses it on her D7000 all the time, we had planned this lens as interim setup before buying something like a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but through a lot of testing the Nikon 18-105 stands up really well to lenses like my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 The Nikon 18-105 is great for landscape, still life, architecture, seascapes, abstract, sunsets, night skies, city scapes, travel, family snap shots, etc. etc. When it comes time to get good portraits or if the light is going and you want to hand hold, then the 35mm f/1.8 make a great addition.


I recommend the 35 over the 85 just because you will find it a more versatile prime with more general uses. The 86mm on a crop sensor is a moderate telephoto, and more restrictive in its uses. E.g., you might find it too tight for photographing people indoors in a standard house.

While you own the 18-105 and the 35 you can save up for the 85mm if you think it is needed, or you might find the 50mm f/1.8 sufficient, or you might find you need something much wider like a 10-20mm or you get into wildlife photography and need something like a 70-300mm. Even if you decie you didn't like the 35mm focal length and needed something longer then you could sell the 35mm at very little loss, but it is a small and relatively cheap lens with great performance so it is hard to get rid off, I have one and then purchased the Nikon 24-70 2.8 with the intention of selling the 35 1.8, but the 35 1.8is so small and light.

 

[An Exception]

Looks great. How far away from her were you when you took those photos? This is how clueless I am, just for reference.

So stick with the 85mm then. Do Nikon do a non-DX 35mm 1.8? Getting confused a bit with their lenses, looks to me as though the only FX one is a 35mm 1.4. No 1.8?

Can you stick up a picture with the 85mm, maybe even do a comparison against the 35mm? Tell me where to go if that's asking too much.

I can save £25 by buying the 18-105mm as a kit lens, so that's something I guess if I went down that route.

Only the 1.4 is FX & AFS.

The below link will simulate the field of view for you, just remember to input the correct sensor size.
You can also see the difference between FF and crop field of view...

 

[Columbo]

As above the Nikon 35mm is really a superb bit of kit and if you are a Nikon body owner it should be against the law not to own one.

I took this of my friends Bengal moggy yesterday.


Cat's Eye by m.ww, on Flickr

 

[alexthecheese]

Wow. That looks amazing. That's on a D90 right?

That looks chuffing brilliant. Could I expect that on a D5100?

Where's the link btw An Exception?

 

[Columbo]

Wow. That looks amazing. That's on a D90 right?

That looks chuffing brilliant. Could I expect that on a D5100?

Where's the link btw An Exception?

Yeah you can actually expect more on the D5100 as the sensor is quite a bit better than the D90, particularly at higher ISO's.

 

[alexthecheese]

Oh for farks sake, I thought I was there, with the D5100, but after watching a video of the interface it looks dreadful in comparison to the 550/600d. Didn't realise it was actually that bad.

I'll be back once I've picked one up.

 

[James J]

Oh for farks sake, I thought I was there, with the D5100, but after watching a video of the interface it looks dreadful in comparison to the 550/600d. Didn't realise it was actually that bad.

I'll be back once I've picked one up.

Whys that then? I had no issues with the interface at all and you can quickly change all the important settings you need in manual mode easily.

 

[alexthecheese]

Hmm - maybe too quick to react - but the video I saw from that Cameralabs guy shows it to be pretty poor in comparison to the 550d. I'll go check it out.