08-30-2010, 10:58 AM
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1283158614' post='2331']
For the lens: if you take macro shots the canon 100mm 2.8 for 500 Euros/dollars is great. for an additional 200 Euro you can get it with IS. Nikon has a 105mm macro lens with IS. These lenses make good outdoor portrait lenses, too, but they are a little long, especially indoors. I suggest you get a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 in addition for indoor portraits. If you dont need macro just get one lens: Canon/Nikon 85mm 1.8
Well, full frame or not is a highly subjective decision. Basically full frame has three advantages:
1. more background blur with shorter focal length: If you like photos with shallow depth of field, this is awesome (The main reason I went fullframe)
2. large aperture wide angle primes. There are no wide angle lenses brighter than f/2.8 for aps-c but lots for fullframe
3. Much Larger (but not brighter) viewfinder (Great!)
4. Better noise performance. Somewhat overrated, I believe. Generally, you get about 1 stop in practice compared to aps-c. Not enough for me to warrant the cost of full frame (the gain is greater with Nikon d3s)
cons against fullframe:
1. expensive
2. lenses, especially walk around zooms are more expensive, larger and heavier than the equivalent lenses for aps-c. If you dont need the most shallow depth of field and the slight advantage in noise performacne, Aps-c is more convenient then full frame
3. if you photograph wildlife you have to carry extremly large and expensive telephoto lenses while with aps-c you may get away with a 100-400 zoom.
[/quote]
Thank you Jenbenn for well organized ideas! I want macro, but I also want the large aperture more, so I may end up with a Sigma 50mm 1,4 to start with.
With respect to FF, I think that will have to come later, maybe as a second body, because the advantages don't seem important enough for me at the time being to justify the large cost difference. I can do with a WA zoom that is not that fast. For me that will be mostly for landscapes and architecture and I believe I can get good enough results with a D300s or a 7d, maybe with a prime WA.
Then I think I will go with a 17-50 F2,8, so as to be able to use the shallow DoF and a prime for low light work to start with. In a while, I will buy a 70-200 or the new 70-300 and a WA zoom. Wish me luck- I still have not decided between the 7d and the D300s <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> If it had not been for the 70-200 F4 IS USM, I would already have owned the Nikon. I am trying to find a good replacement in Nikon land <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Have you got a good suggestion (apart from the Nikon 70-200 which is too expensive)?
For the lens: if you take macro shots the canon 100mm 2.8 for 500 Euros/dollars is great. for an additional 200 Euro you can get it with IS. Nikon has a 105mm macro lens with IS. These lenses make good outdoor portrait lenses, too, but they are a little long, especially indoors. I suggest you get a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 in addition for indoor portraits. If you dont need macro just get one lens: Canon/Nikon 85mm 1.8
Well, full frame or not is a highly subjective decision. Basically full frame has three advantages:
1. more background blur with shorter focal length: If you like photos with shallow depth of field, this is awesome (The main reason I went fullframe)
2. large aperture wide angle primes. There are no wide angle lenses brighter than f/2.8 for aps-c but lots for fullframe
3. Much Larger (but not brighter) viewfinder (Great!)
4. Better noise performance. Somewhat overrated, I believe. Generally, you get about 1 stop in practice compared to aps-c. Not enough for me to warrant the cost of full frame (the gain is greater with Nikon d3s)
cons against fullframe:
1. expensive
2. lenses, especially walk around zooms are more expensive, larger and heavier than the equivalent lenses for aps-c. If you dont need the most shallow depth of field and the slight advantage in noise performacne, Aps-c is more convenient then full frame
3. if you photograph wildlife you have to carry extremly large and expensive telephoto lenses while with aps-c you may get away with a 100-400 zoom.
[/quote]
Thank you Jenbenn for well organized ideas! I want macro, but I also want the large aperture more, so I may end up with a Sigma 50mm 1,4 to start with.
With respect to FF, I think that will have to come later, maybe as a second body, because the advantages don't seem important enough for me at the time being to justify the large cost difference. I can do with a WA zoom that is not that fast. For me that will be mostly for landscapes and architecture and I believe I can get good enough results with a D300s or a 7d, maybe with a prime WA.
Then I think I will go with a 17-50 F2,8, so as to be able to use the shallow DoF and a prime for low light work to start with. In a while, I will buy a 70-200 or the new 70-300 and a WA zoom. Wish me luck- I still have not decided between the 7d and the D300s <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> If it had not been for the 70-200 F4 IS USM, I would already have owned the Nikon. I am trying to find a good replacement in Nikon land <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Have you got a good suggestion (apart from the Nikon 70-200 which is too expensive)?