For shooting at the Grand Canyon will I be fine with a 60D/10-22mm combo or should I just rent a Mark II with the Canon 16-35mm?
809307
60D/10-22mm should be fine it truly depends on the light conditions. Camera body is of secondary importance the more import mat is the quality of the lens. 16-35mm is better quality but be careful not to make all the things too small in the picture through using too wide angle.
809308
Yes, although honestly, that will probably be too wide for most of your work there. The canyon is so expansive that you'll probably end up wanting to shoot with a longer lens on most of the time, otherwise the details of the canyon will be too small. I literally just got back from the Grand Canyon and had both the 5D Mark III and the 7D with me. I had the 16-35mm with me for the 5D and the 10-22mm for the 7D. I rarely used either lens, and instead much preferred my 24-70mm on either body.
809309
It will be almost identical - the 60D is a 1.6 crop, so 10mm is effectively 16. I would (and have) just shoot with the 60D + 10-22.
809310
I do not have a FF DSLR, (I have a 50d and 10-22mm) but what I know is that they have the same field of view, so I think the 60D and 10-22mm combo will be great.
1428038
I'm using a panny gh3 so not sure about the canon. However there is plenty of room for the mft 600mm so think you'd be ok with a shortish zoom. it's definitely designed for underwater with cam preset. if you want give me the zoom in length . i'll measure of it
2170941
If you want wide angle, the 17-40 isn't much of one on a crop camera. Go with the 10-22. Take good care of it and it will retain a high resale value. If and when you do upgrade to a full frame you won't take much of a loss selling it.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
2256736
I have the Fujifilm 23mm and really like it, but it I had just one lens, I would select the 35mm because in the 35mm film format, this would have the same angle of view as a 52.5mm lens. The standard lens for the film cameras was a 50mm to 55mm lens. This provided a more natural perspective to the human eye. Wide angle lens. like the Fuji 23mm, somewhat distort the view making things further away than they actually are. The 35mm will also give you are better head and shoulder shot. When shooting the landscape, the 23mm will give you a broader view, but the details of the Grand Canyon will be lost. Both lenses are optically very good. Both are fast - f1/4, but the 35mm is $300 less! I have the Fujifilm 23mm and really like it, but it I had just one lens, I would select the 35mm because in the 35mm film format, this would have the same angle of view as a 52.5mm lens. The standard lens for the film cameras was a 50mm to 55mm lens. This provided a more natural perspective to the human eye. Wide angle lens. like the Fuji 23mm, somewhat distort the view making things further away than they actually are. The 35mm will also give you are better head and shoulder shot. When shooting the landscape, the 23mm will give you a broader view, but the details of the Grand Canyon will... » Read More I have the Fujifilm 23mm and really like it, but it I had just one lens, I would select the 35mm because in the 35mm film format, this would have the same angle of view as a 52.5mm lens. The standard lens for the film cameras was a 50mm to 55mm lens. This provided a more natural perspective to the human eye. Wide angle lens. like the Fuji 23mm, somewhat distort the view making things further away than they actually are. The 35mm will also give you are better head and shoulder shot. When shooting the landscape, the 23mm will give you a broader view, but the details of the Grand Canyon will be lost. Both lenses are optically very good. Both are fast - f1/4, but the 35mm is $300 less! « Show Less
1484671
Bernard is correct I think. Any modern camera that meters through the lens *should* be fine but you may not like the results and may need to adjust a bit.
301036
If you're going backpacking, I imagine you want something light and maybe autofocus? The Panasonic 14-140mm covers a great range and is great for outdoors when the sun is shining, but it's kinda bulky. For night photography, it's not the best. If you plan on using it during the day, then that would be the most versatile. If you want to keep it smaller, you're best bet is a kit lens, like the 14-42mm. It's cheap, relatively small and takes fantastic photos in broad daylight. Again, it's a turd in the dark and the flash on the GX7 is a joke. You'll get the shadow of just about any lens in your shot when using the flash. If you're going backpacking, I imagine you want something light and maybe autofocus? The Panasonic 14-140mm covers a great range and is great for outdoors when the sun is shining, but it's kinda bulky. For night photography, it's not the best. If you plan on using it during the day, then that would be the most versatile. If you want to keep it smaller, you're best bet is a kit lens, like the 14-42mm. It's cheap, relatively small and takes fantastic photos in broad daylight. Again, it's a turd in the dark and the flash on the GX7 is a joke. You'll get the shadow of just about any lens in... » Read More If you're going backpacking, I imagine you want something light and maybe autofocus? The Panasonic 14-140mm covers a great range and is great for outdoors when the sun is shining, but it's kinda bulky. For night photography, it's not the best. If you plan on using it during the day, then that would be the most versatile. If you want to keep it smaller, you're best bet is a kit lens, like the 14-42mm. It's cheap, relatively small and takes fantastic photos in broad daylight. Again, it's a turd in the dark and the flash on the GX7 is a joke. You'll get the shadow of just about any lens in your shot when using the flash. « Show Less
1511683
I've been to Hawaii 2 times, it's beautiful. Both cameras take excellent images. Scenic shots are often done with wide angle and not a lot of telephoto. The higher the zoom, the more camera shake you get. 10X will show more shake than 6X even with image stabilization, unless you plan to use a monopod or tripod. I feel that 6X is plenty of zoom for most of your picture taking there. I would suggest the 720, it's over 2 oz. lighter and a bit smaller body size. Aloha
407626
I don't have 10-22, I have the 15-85 and 15mm you need becareful of vignetting so I'm assuming at 10 it would definitely be an issue.
1587467
In my opinion it performs well in the lower numbers, 17-35ish mm. But you would probably be better off renting one for half a day or w/e your local photography stores rent them by; per day, half day, hour.
728066
Yes, you can use it on a 60D. This is just my personal experience and opinion, but I found it to be a very good bargain for the quality. I may have had an exceptional copy, but I found it pretty sharp at 300mm. Certainly more than usable. But at that range, hand-holding definitely needs a fast shutter speed, so be wary of that. I'll show you some examples. Here's a link to my website: http://wagnerimagery.com/beauty/ So on that page, the ones shot with the 70-300mm (on a 5d mk ii) are the two dragonflies, the bee, the sunflower with one yellow petal, the leaf with a water droplet on it, and the gosling hiding in the grass where you can just see his eye. I found it to be a great lens for the price. Your mileage may vary. The AF is not terribly fast, fyi.
2279391
I would compare it to my smaller camera as a 10x zoom for the really good zoom go up to the next lens, I loved my photos at the Grand Canyon, Walking around I used the 30-110 and to zoom in on the river aprox 1 mile below I used my bigger lens 110-220, I like the polarize filter, It is great for outdoors, no glare and crisper color, email if you need more details
94311
Definately get the Sony High Grade wide accessory lens....its sharp as a tack, and really lets you take advantage of the widescreen 16 X 9 format. Its wonderful for scenics....and helps with indoor shots too....secondly....get the largest battery you can afford.....and third...pick up an 8 or 16 gig pro duo memory stick to "trick out" this great camera. If you plan on doing some serious shooting the dedicated Sony VCT-80AV tripod is great...all the major control functions built into the tripod grip (including a great "slow zoom". It connects directly to the camera through a small port on the right side of the camera near the rear. Bill in Missouri
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
963789
55-210 like others has said should fit your needs. I wouldn't go with the 18-200 since you should already have the 18-55 with your kit. By the way, I use 18-55 for 90% of my shots. I bought the 55-210 myself, It's cheaper and in my test before I bought it, it has better contrast and IQ then the 18-200. The 18-55 and 55-210 are the only lens I take with me when I go on vacation. Also 18-200 is a lot heaver. FYI: Once you pass the beginning phase with this camera, get you some adaptors for other lens and it pretty much open a new world of options on photography. Have fun out there!
1671036
Yes, but you will have to zoom at 15mm or 16mm, Why not take the full frame version, 16-28
1871180
Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to 1600 or higher, then you would have noise to deal with. I've tried to use this lens indoors, and it is terrible, even in well lit venues. Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to... » Read More Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to 1600 or higher, then you would have noise to deal with. I've tried to use this lens indoors, and it is terrible, even in well lit venues. « Show Less