Advice needed on DSLR and lenses

[cem]

Hi all,

I am soon going to buy a DSLR and associated lenses. I need urgent advice from you to help make up my mind

Firstly, I am not a sports photographer or journalist and I try to take good care of my equipment, so the ruggedness of the camera is not a primary concern of mine. I like to photograph landscapes, architecture, still life, street life, concerts, people, portraits and general snapshots. I am leaning towards the wisdom that it is better to buy a middle-of-the road body and excellent lenses rather than buy a semi-pro body and have no money left to spend on excellent/sharp lenses. I think that I can upgrade the body in a few year’s time, the lenses will hopefully last longer than that. Therefore, a D80 and not a D200. A 400D and not a 30D. But, I am willing to make an exception for the 5D. The problem is, I can’t decide, as usual. I have currently 3 Nikon SLR cameras. So it would be logical to buy a Nikon DSLR, but the quality of lenses is not enough to use them on a DSLR. OTOH, I am also enchanted by certain Canon camera’s and lenses. So this is what I’m looking at right now:

1) Canon 5D / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (3,129 Euro)

2) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (2,383 Euro)

3) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 17-85mm F/4.0-5.6 USM IS / Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L USM (2,390 Euro)

4) Nikon D80 / Nikon AF-S 12-24mm F/4.0 G DX IF ED / Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 G DX VR IF ED (2,827 Euro)

5) Nikon D80 / Tokina 12-24mm F/4.0 AT-X / Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 G DX VR IF ED (2,113 Euro)

So please give me your thoughts about this. Are these combinations sensible choices? Would you match and mix lenses in any other ways? Anything you might say, really . Thanks a lot.

Regards,

Cem

[gcrogers]

Could you ask an easier question please, Cem?

I'll jump in and comment on the Nikon choices. Not qualified to comment on Canon, never owned a Canon DSLR.

Your lens choices (the 12-24 and 18-200 VR) are on the mark, IMO. The 12-24 is my favorite. That said, the 18-200 VR stays mounted more than not. It is a great general purpose lens. It distorts in the corners a bit at the 18mm end of the stop, and it is not as crystal clear as I'd hope for at the 200mm end (again, right at the stop).....but I never have cared much for the sharpness of any telephoto I've owned, even fixed focal length. I guess I'm too picky. (or more likely have too-high expectation) I also can't comment on substituting with the Tokina 12-24 in your option 5, no experience.

Perhaps I should keep quiet since I don't own a D80, but I do own both a D70 and a D200 and FWIW the D200 was a giant leap improvement. Specifically in these 3 areas;

Auto White Balance, exposure control (auto), and flash exposure control (both built-in pop-up and the SB-800) Unless maybe my D70 was a dud from the day I bought it. I'm still not convinced it was not. I have to assume from what I've read that the things I've mentioned I like about the D200 over the D70 also apply to the D80. Diane of this forum fame has a D70 and D80, perhaps she might opine.

I agree that interchangability with any current non-digital Nikon lens you may have is not really a consideration to 'stay with Nikon'. I never found any of mine to be at all useful. In fairness, never experimented much either.

I have no idea how this is helpful, but you asked for "anything", dude.

Anxiously awaiting other comments (this could get interesting),
-Greg

[Diane]

Hi Cem, hi to Greg, too.

Greg is right, I have both the D70 and the D80. I also have never owned a Canon so I also will decline to comment as well.

I have the kit lens from the D70 (18-70mm, a very nice lens) but I've pretty much replaced that with the 18-200mm VR (the VR works very well). I agree with Greg, it's not perfect but its versatility is a fair compromise for its shortcomings. It is on my camera most of the time.

I also have the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens; I got it for the reason that it's one of Nikon's sharper lenses, it's fast, and it's inexpensive (about $100...quite a deal). The 18-200mm works well for me most of the time, but there are times I would like a wider angle, so I think your choice of 12-24mm is a good one, although I cannot comment on the quality of either lens you are considering in that range.

The D80 is really an awesome camera. The D70 underexposed (a little too much, in my opinion), and Nikon improved on the D80. I've read in forums that some people think it overexposes. I haven't used it that much yet to come up with my own opinion, but with either camera, I'm always checking the histogram anyway (the D80 has an RGB histogram) and adjusting accordingly. Like someone said in a forum, if you think it over exposes, just set the camera to underexpose and leave it on that setting.

I get very nice saturated colors with the D80, and the details from the 10MP sensor are amazing. I agree with Greg, the white balance works very well when outdoors. Indoors, I either present the WB (I use an Expodisc) or set it to the lighting in the room.

I agree with you, Cem, the camera is probably not as important as the lens. My reason for not getting the D200 was because it weighs more than the D80, and it's probably a lot more camera than I need.

I, like you, photograph just about anything and everything, I don't have any subjects that I like more than others.

I am very happy with Nikon's customer service. When my D70 (out of warrantee) suddenly stopped working (it was a known problem with some of the D70s), I sent it to Nikon on a Thursday and had it back on the following Monday (if my memory is correct).

I take my camera with me almost everywhere. The D70 has held up very well. It looks like new.

Diane

[Kevgermany]

Can't comment on the specifics as I'm still film, but thought this through a while ago and drew up criteria for digital, may be worth sharing them:

Lenses - expensive and about the only part of the investment that can be expected to last more than 3 years. As sensor sizes are changing and there's a chance that Nikon may bring out a full frame sensor, aim for full frame sensor coverage where possible. Buy one or 2 small sensor lenses for wide angle coverage if needed. These represent a smaller part of teh investment if you end up with a full frame ensor body later

Bodies - buy at the bottom as you're suggesting. Expect to write it off or put a cheap wide range zoom on it for the kids in 2-3 years time. 80/400D don't miss much from the next step up.... From the reviews it seems as if the D80 is almost a D200 in build and handling. The gap appears to be bigger on the Canons.

Overall cost - this is not a cheap exercise. A friend has just spent in excess of 20K euros on a 5D plus canon lenses and flash units. Some of the compatibles offer equivalent or better performance than the brand lenses (Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 for instance) for significantly less cost.

Have seen shots from the 5D and a few others. Images are really good, especially in low light. It's almost as good as the 1DsII, and if anything better than the 1D. Frankly, I was surprised.

If it was me, I'd go down the shop, play with the bodies and see which feels better. Try a few lenses. Check for focussing speed and so on. Try out the good brand competitors. Then I'd come back and read the reviews, especially over lens qualities. MAybe I'd try to hire/borrow the short list for a weekend. Then I'd decide. As a Nikon user you may not be able to get used to the Canon bodies, but it may be time for a change. The cameras don't make better shots - but one that handles well for you can make it a lot easier - and more liekly that you'll have it with you when you need it...

Nikon has the attraction of those Zeiss manual lenses...

Don't write off Olympus, Pentax or Sony (Minolta) either.

Kevin - who's staying with film - there's just so much more in MF!

[Dierk]

I agree with you, Cem, the camera is probably not as important as the lens.

At last I get the chance ...

Back in the old days, when lens and recording material were exchangeable, and one may have done a lot in post-processing [chemistry] I'd easily subscribed to the view about bodies not being important. That has changed radically with digital.

The change started in the early to mid-80s when ever more and ever better little helpers were added to bodies. At the same time lens quality reached an unforeseen height across the board, i.e. zoom lenses finally became usable even by HiQ-types. Today third-party manufacturers are not always [much] cheaper than OEMs, just compare the proces for Sigma Fisheyes with the Nikon 10.5 mm FE. We also know that many original lenses are actually made by the same third-party companies.

Canon and Nikon offer largely comparable systems - lenses, accessories, quality are on par. Only if you have a very specific need will you have to look who's meeting it and who not (say, you need a 1200 mm mirror lens*).

As far as the body goes I can only tell you to go out to your local dealer, and try to get yourself at least a Canon body lend over the week-end. You have to know the camera is not a hindrance but falls naturally into your habits. Since you already own Nikon gear - BTW, what camera[s]? - you may actually be well-versed in using Nikon. Personally I never found Canon's design choices [for beauty and usability] tempting. When I decided to go with Minolta in 1986 the alternative was a Canon T90. When I later went from Minolta to Nikon, the EOS-1 was on the table, too. But that's really personal taste.

Regardless of what brand your camera will be, you should have a look into Sigma lenses, the 15-30 mm for instance is quite a lens. If you decide on Nikon, you may rethink the choice of lenses if budget permits:

- although much good has been written about the 18-200 I am not too keen on these wide-ranging zooms
- Nikon's 70-200 mm VR is a brilliant lens in every respect, surely better than the 18-200 mm
- Sigma and Nikon both offer some very good and interesting wide-angle zooms; I already mentioned the 15-30 mm Sigma.
- I always recommend to get a 50 mm prime with 1.8 or 1.4 max opening (depending on budget again)
- consider a dedicated makro lens, Nikon's 105 mm is very good and now comes with VR. Sigma has a very interesting 180 mm in their portfolio.

My current set-up:

Nikon 10.5 mm Fisheye
Sigma 15-30 mm
Nikon 2.8/28 mm
Nikon 1.8/50 mm
Nikon 105 mm Makro
Nikon 70-200 mm VR
Lensbaby 2.0

While the 28, 50 and 105 are remnants of pre-digital I still use them regularly.



*I made this up, no idea if Canon, Nikon or any third-party offers such a thing.

[Kevgermany]

I have a Bausch & Lomb 1200mm f11 mirror....

It's really a telescope with a t mount adaptor. Useless as a lens, though. Not sharp.

[Costas L]

I am soon going to buy a DSLR and associated lenses. I need urgent advice from you to help make up my mind

Firstly, I am not a sports photographer or journalist and I try to take good care of my equipment, so the ruggedness of the camera is not a primary concern of mine. I like to photograph landscapes, architecture, still life, street life, concerts, people, portraits and general snapshots.
Cem

Hello cem - looks like Santa might be trying to get an extra sack down your chimney this Xmas

I think it is worth considering whether the subjects you shoot might benefit from a full frame sensor, so in that regard whether you tend towards shooting wide angle or telephoto. Having had a similar choice to make in the spring, I went with the Canon 5D / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS.

Having used this on a wide range of subjects, I am fairly convinced the decision not to go with a crop sensor was right for me; - most of what I have shot during the summer has been in the 24mm to 35mm range and had the same images been produced with a wider angle lens on a crop sensor camera would not have looked the same. Its not always possible to change the position your shooting from to keep the perspective the same. The drawback is you have larger lenses and camera to carry around.

One feature of the 5D I use far more than I had anticipated, is shooting at ISO800 and ISO1600 - but that may be because it does not have a built in pop-up flash and my Minolta flash guns do not work with the Canon. So you might want to factor in the cost of a Canon flash if you use much flash and do not buy a Nikon body.

[Kevgermany]

Hmmm. There are a couple of posts here that I'm sure I've seen elsewhere, almost word for word.....

[Dierk]

No wonder, Kevin, you read the same forums as those posters.

Seriously, while I tend to post different things in OPF and here, sometimes questions arise which may be of interest on both forums. Like in this case.

[Costas L]

Dierk,

I think if one were say something often enough, in enough different places, then enough people will believe it enough for it to be TRUTH.

Edit
Perhaps we can start some rumours this way.

[RobertF]

Hi all,





2) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM / Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L USM IS (2,383 Euro)

3) Canon 400D (XTi) / Canon EF-S 17-85mm F/4.0-5.6 USM IS / Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L USM (2,390 Euro)



So please give me your thoughts about this. Are these combinations sensible choices? Would you match and mix lenses in any other ways? Anything you might say, really . Thanks a lot.

Regards,

Cem

Hi Cem,

Some comments coming from my 350D experience :

You could also think to the following combination :

Tamron 11-18mm (500€) which cheaper and better than tha canon 10-22, + Canon 17-40mm (700€)L series which an excellent semi wide with a cropped sensor + the 28-135mm (460€)canon IS which is a very good alternative to the 24-105mm which has got, IMHO, too much vignetting and distortion at 24mm

I think the budget will be about 1700€, as ...the weight might be a bit more important ! But in the range of 17-40mm ( 27 - 64 equiv 35mm) you get a super lens
and you (a bit ) further with the 135mm

That' about 2400-1700=700€ difference, which part of the investment for the very good 100-400mm IS (1500€)!!

Cheers

[Peter D]

I have only just recently acquired the D80 with 18-200 VR and Sigma 10-20.
Just practicing in the garden has taught me that the camera body is very sophisticated. With the colour mode set to 1a or 111a on a sunny day the NEF images are slightly red, requiring -10 red channel saturation In Elements 3. This is not noticeable on colour mode 11. The camera turns on instantly and is ready to use in the blink of an eye! The 18-200 focuses instantly and produces beautifully sharp pictures (400mm wide on A3 paper) with a camera sharpness setting of Normal and in Elements 3 the USM is 75, 2.5 0.
The 10-20 is not quite as sharp requiring 100, 2.5, 0 and slightly more minus red saturation (-20). However I am very impressed with image sharpness, colour saturation and the speed with which one can take a picture and then see it on the monitor.
I am less than happy with the weight of everything and the built in flash produced hopeless results at a party (but it was the same day I bought it).
Getting the Raw images in the computer is a pain. I use the PictureProject software that comes with the camera. However the images can not be imported into Elements 3 Organizer but can be manipulated in the Editor.
I tried to download Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 Beta, but it was to complicated.
Good luck with your choice,

[cem]

Hi all,

Just came home from a very long and tiring day. Many thanks to everyone who has taken their precious time in providing valuable answers, I appreciate it very much

I will disclose tomorrow what I ended up buying today, and the reasons behind it. Now, I am going to go to bed. Good night!

Regards,

Cem

[Diane]

Dierk, I think you took my statemtent that you quoted out of context. Cem said he was considering the D80 rather than the D200 and my point was that I agreed with him. He wanted better lenses and a less expensive camera.

Given that the D80 is a newer camera than the D200 and yet similar to the D200 in very many ways, I think even you would not be able to tell the difference in two photographs taken with each camera, using the same lens.

[Dierk]

You are right Diane, I misunderstood the specific quote on purpose. I am quite clear about the differences between the D80 and the D200 (not many), and I would make the same recommendation if the budget is fixed - as I indicated when writing about lenses. I am also quite clear that my way of responding [not just in writing] is often taken to be an attack of the position someone else claims.

Let me assure you that I took the quote just as a a kind of hanger from which my general rant about one of those rulings which are too often taken as natural laws and deep truths although they are nothing more than hollow phrases. You didn't use it like that - I just needed someone reiterating a version of it. Hence my first sentence of that post. If I am correct we are more often in step with our position towards photography than not.

Sorry I elicited the impression I disagree with you on the matter at hand.