DVD-Software.info

[Mardon]

Mrs. Claus has asked me what I want for my new DLSR & lens combination. I'm
not sure what to tell her and the opinions of others would be appreciated.
My dilemma involves the trade-off between the lens cost and camera body
cost. I know that conventional wisdom says to put the money into the lens
but I wonder if that is the case with my specific choice. I also know that
the decision depends upon what kind of photography I want to do, so I'll
recap that quickly. I'm a hobbyist, not a pro. I've been using film SLR's
for over 40 years. I switched to digital in 2002 with a Canon G2 and I've
had my work selected as POTD on several occasions at the PowerShot web site.
I like to take pics of family events (for which I generally need wide
angle), of insects and flowers (for which I need macro) and of car races and
other action sports, for which I need telephoto. I have already decided on
Canon equipment and I do not want any "S" series lenses. I have also
decided that I do not want any primes. I know that 'no primes' may be an
unpopular decision but I've had primes in the past and I find that I've
hardly ever used them. I know primes give better quality for the money but
I wouldn't use them, so it would be a waste for me to buy one. That said, I
already plan on getting an EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM and an EF100mm f2.8 Macro
USM. That decision is made. What I'm unsure about is the telephoto lens &
camera body combination. For the exact same price, I can get either (1) a
D20 Body with a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (I know this is a heavy lens,
especially for the D20 body) or (2) a 5D body and no additional telephoto
lens. What would others do, go for the 70-200 and the 20D body or the 5D
body without the additional telephoto lens? With the 5D I'd lose serious
telephoto capacity because I'd have no crop factor and a 100mm less for my
longest lens. I would like spot metering however. I'm leaning toward the
20D body with the idea that almost any body will be outdated and need
replacing in 3 or 4 years. Comments?

[Mark²]

I have been very happy with the nearly *identical* set of lenses you
describe:
16-35 2.8 L
24-70 2.8 L (which recently replaced my 28-135 IS non-L)
70-200 2.8 IS L
100mm 2.8 Macro
1.4x

If you want to do significant tele, I think you're right in that you may be
frustrated without the 1.6 crop-factor.
I've been considering the 5D myself (10D at the moment), but I realize that
this would mean my desire for a fast 400mm lens would seriously
increase...and I'm not prepared to spend $7K for the one I'd want...

I think you'll likely find that the gap between 35mm and 70mm is too
significant. You might want to consider either the 28-135 IS, or the 24-105
IS L. If I had it to do over again, I'd likely switch my 24-70 for the
24-105, simply because it's such a useful long-end range.

The only time you'll wish for full-frame is when you want REALLY wide angle
(which I would often appreciate), or when you simply need the high
resolution for bigger enlargement.

-Mark2

[Backbone]

<snip>

[Scott W]

Can you be happy with an effective focal length of 25.6mm for your wide
angle lens, that would be the 16-35 at 16 time the 1.6 crop factor. If
you can then I would say go for the 20D. If you want to go wider angle
and will not buy S lenses (but the 10-22 s is very sweet) then a full
size sensor might make more sense.

You are right, any body will be outdated in just a few years.

Scott