Are L lenses a must have for this camera? I'm looking into upgrading to a full format camera (mostly for pleasure and maybe some money on the side shooting weddings) and 5d seems to have the best price to performance ratio.However, I see that a lot of reviewers mention that they use the L series lenses. For an amateur photographer the prices seem a bit steep as the fast ones go for well over $1000.So my question is, is it even worth buying a 5d (or any other full frame camera for that matter) if i'm not willing to shell out thousands of dollars for the best lenses? Are L lenses a must have for this camera? I'm looking into upgrading to a full format camera (mostly for pleasure and maybe some money on the side shooting weddings) and 5d seems to have the... » Read More Are L lenses a must have for this camera? I'm looking into upgrading to a full format camera (mostly for pleasure and maybe some money on the side shooting weddings) and 5d seems to have the best price to performance ratio.However, I see that a lot of reviewers mention that they use the L series lenses. For an amateur photographer the prices seem a bit steep as the fast ones go for well over $1000.So my question is, is it even worth buying a 5d (or any other full frame camera for that matter) if i'm not willing to shell out thousands of dollars for the best lenses? « Show Less
1699818
The lowest end body with an L glass will produce better pictures than the highest end body with a crappy lens. Invest in lenses, they last longer than bodies.
1699819
If you had to choose between high quality glass or a pro body, opt for the better glass.
1699820
It is not a must. But L lens in general have better IQ and better build than non-L lens. I have EF-S lens, EF zoom lens, EF prime lens and L lens. And the L lens is way better than all my other lens.
1351158
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a... » Read More I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. « Show Less
1784426
The lens is great for all around use. Tack sharp and worth every penny. If you plan on moving full frame it's worth it. On a DX body it will act like a 36-105. It's a bit on the weighty side but not over bearing. I have found the images have a certain pop to them that most other lenses can't provide unless they have the nano coating. Your other option is the great 17-55 which is designed for DX cameras. Look online there are some great reviews. If money isn't an issue go for it.
143456
It depends on your equipment and needs. My suggestion is to rent one from BorrowedLenses, they do have it and try it out before buying. I have done this with some recent L series lens purchases. It was much easier to make a decision on those fat lenses.
583552
This zoom lens is 110% better than the kit zoom lens. Basically Canon L glass is the top of the line glass. The quality of the shots taken with L glass is amazing. The construction is second to none, it's built like a tank and lasts for over 20 years with proper care. The resale value is usually high because of their quality. This was my first L glass from Canon and I never looked back. I don't know which zoom lens your talking about, the 75-300,55-250 or 70-300mm. My first ever zoom lens was the 70-300mm I still use this lens even though i upgraded to the L glass just because of the extra 100mm reach. But the only real shots i take with the 70-300 are shots of the moon. Other than that it's the 70-200mm F4 for me.
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
1891715
Gregory, I don't know if you are purchasing the Canon 20D camera body from the same person that I did. If so then this is what I think. After much research on the camera, I found it was the top of the line, of all cameras, when it first came out. The original price was up around $1800 and had more "bells and Whistles" on it than you could imagine. It was stated that it was in very good condition. When I got it in the mail, I found everything was sealed in its original wrappings and the manual's pages were not even bent. I really believe that it had never been out of the original box. It was in mint condition. I am using it strictly for astrophotography on my 3 large telescopes. It is performing flawlessly. I still had a couple of lenses from my old 35mm film camera, so I bought an adapter for the 20D so I could use the lenses. The photos are great. The 20D was made back in 2004, I believe, but it is far from being obsolete. It has a great range of speed and apertures and the ISO is very good. It even has an electronic noise reducer that gets rid of graininess when you go above 800 ISO. That works very well. Go for it. Ron
1907926
For sure, it's a big deal buy the Canon 6D with the 24-105 L IS kit lens.Its a L series that costs about U$800.00 if bought separately.I bought mine with this lens plus a cheap 50mm 1.8.I am very happy with this set. Very very good pictures quality with the 24-105mm.RegardsJosé Geraldo
468418
Do you have olympus lenses or will this be your first slr? If it's your first I would say go with the 520 if you have the extra cash. I have the e 510 and use it for everything. I just used it for a wedding and the pictures were amazing! I would put the e-510 up against any other camera on the market in the under $1000 class. The 520 has some features that are tying to attract more point-n-shooters, like face detection with the live view. It also has upgrades that ofcourse we haven't seen so we won't know if they make a big enough difference. If you can wait get the 520, if not the e-510 with the 14-54 lens is a great combo, you can't go wrong with either one. Do you have olympus lenses or will this be your first slr? If it's your first I would say go with the 520 if you have the extra cash. I have the e 510 and use it for everything. I just used it for a wedding and the pictures were amazing! I would put the e-510 up against any other camera on the market in the under $1000 class. The 520 has some features that are tying to attract more point-n-shooters, like face detection with the live view. It also has upgrades that ofcourse we haven't seen so we won't know if they make a big enough difference. If you can wait get the 520, if not the e-510... » Read More Do you have olympus lenses or will this be your first slr? If it's your first I would say go with the 520 if you have the extra cash. I have the e 510 and use it for everything. I just used it for a wedding and the pictures were amazing! I would put the e-510 up against any other camera on the market in the under $1000 class. The 520 has some features that are tying to attract more point-n-shooters, like face detection with the live view. It also has upgrades that ofcourse we haven't seen so we won't know if they make a big enough difference. If you can wait get the 520, if not the e-510 with the 14-54 lens is a great combo, you can't go wrong with either one. « Show Less
1647403
Sound like you have a nice kit, but does sound like and upgrade is in order For your t3 this would make a great but quit long portrait lens, and a good lens for some sports. Keep in mind though it is not a zoom. One person here mentions the 70-200 f2.5 zoom which is a great lens for what you should consider. I would put it on a full frame body or the 7d. One more thing I would not trade, as I said you have a nice kit. In yur shoes I would spring for the 7d body and this lens for starters. Keep your curent kit for backup. The 50mm f1.4 would be something I would want to great portrait lens for t3 and 7d. Sound like you have a nice kit, but does sound like and upgrade is in order For your t3 this would make a great but quit long portrait lens, and a good lens for some sports. Keep in mind though it is not a zoom. One person here mentions the 70-200 f2.5 zoom which is a great lens for what you should consider. I would put it on a full frame body or the 7d. One more thing I would not trade, as I said you have a nice kit. In yur shoes I would spring for the 7d body and this lens for starters. Keep your curent kit for backup. The 50mm f1.4 would be something I would want to great portrait lens... » Read More Sound like you have a nice kit, but does sound like and upgrade is in order For your t3 this would make a great but quit long portrait lens, and a good lens for some sports. Keep in mind though it is not a zoom. One person here mentions the 70-200 f2.5 zoom which is a great lens for what you should consider. I would put it on a full frame body or the 7d. One more thing I would not trade, as I said you have a nice kit. In yur shoes I would spring for the 7d body and this lens for starters. Keep your curent kit for backup. The 50mm f1.4 would be something I would want to great portrait lens for t3 and 7d. « Show Less
1431406
I too am only into photography as a rather serious hobby. When I bought the a7 my principal motivation was upgrading to a full frame camera. It has lots of great features and, overall, is a very fine piece of equipment. My only complaint is that Sony seems reluctant to furnish its camera with lenses made for the camera. There is a whole menagerie of lenses that sort of work with it, many requiring an adapter. I bought the rather pricy 200mm lens that is made for the a7, it is a very good lens, but really over priced. I admit that I am prejudiced in favor of Nikon products. In fact, some months after getting the a7 I could not resist Nikon's new D750. I attached my 28-300 zoom lens to it and use it as very versatile "walk around" camera, and the a7 now mostly rests in a drawer along with my old Nikon 7000. One undeniable advantage of the a7 is how small and light it is. Getting rid of the mirror for focusing was really a neat trick.
1034419
See my review "Assembling a Compact System". For low-light photography you need a camera with 1) a lens with a wide aperture, and 2) good image stabilization, and 3) good quality photos even at higher ISO settings. The 20mm f1.7 lens which comes as a kit with this camera is an excellent low-light lens, the Summilux 25mm f1.4 is even better. Compared to a zoom with a maximum aperture of F4, the 25mm f1.4 lets in 3 times as much light. But, you'll almost certainly also need a semi-telephoto, and the only appropriate semi-telephoto available for the Lumix is a Nocticron 45.2mm f1.2 (a superb low-light lens), which costs $1600 by itself. Do NOT buy a zoom lens if you want low-light capabilities. Lumix cameras have both in-body stabilization and in-lens stabilization---and will choose which is best for the situation, which is very much a plus. The Lumix has very good ISO performance, which is a plus. One solution to low-light is high-power flash. You can buy such flash units for this camera, but they are expensive and bigger than the camera. My suggestion is a Nikon DSLR (some models are cheaper than the Lumix). There is a wide range of appropriate low-light Nikon lenses available, and a wide range of flash systems available---and the sensors are larger, implying possible better ISO performance (but that probably depends on the particular model). Whatever camera you buy, I also strongly suggest considering a monopod, which can greatly extend your low-light capabilities. The Lumix is a great compact camera with impressive low-light capabilities (when matched with appropriate lenses). But if you do not specifically need a very compact camera, the Lumix is not the best choice for the kind of photography you describe.
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.
122905
I just bought a 40D and I think it is a great camera. As posted, there is not best choice but I am sure if the extra (few) bucks is not an issue, we should go for the 40D. It is also the latest sensor and I found it to be really good. Took some shots and it is great.
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
1413084
You lose very little with this lens vds 70-200. The gain is the extra reach and wide angle, it a major upgrade. Having said that , and given the high $$$, I'd wait for the new model. New Model? I suspect so. Everyone, including Canon, is 'out-of-stock'. Couple that with Canon's receent announcment (July 2009) that they have a new IS that will be in 'interchangable' lenses by the end of 2009, it is not a surprise they stopped producing the 28-300mm so they could clear out the stock.I use the XTi- 40D and now the 5D mark II. The glass makes the picture.
1247701
It sounds like the 6D will suit you fine. Many of the replies have stated that if you can afford the 5D then get that and while I agree it seems that your two greatest concerns are 1) low-light photography and 2) price. The 6D hits each of those points well by being full frame and not as expensive as the 5D. Considering you've been using a Rebel XT the 6D will be a huge step up and should allow you to get some great shots, just remember to pair it with a good lens as well. Which is another great point, since price is an issue, you may very well get more bang for buck by spending the extra money on a much better lens than stepping up to a 5D. It sounds like the 6D will suit you fine. Many of the replies have stated that if you can afford the 5D then get that and while I agree it seems that your two greatest concerns are 1) low-light photography and 2) price. The 6D hits each of those points well by being full frame and not as expensive as the 5D. Considering you've been using a Rebel XT the 6D will be a huge step up and should allow you to get some great shots, just remember to pair it with a good lens as well. Which is another great point, since price is an issue, you may very well get more bang for buck by spending the extra... » Read More It sounds like the 6D will suit you fine. Many of the replies have stated that if you can afford the 5D then get that and while I agree it seems that your two greatest concerns are 1) low-light photography and 2) price. The 6D hits each of those points well by being full frame and not as expensive as the 5D. Considering you've been using a Rebel XT the 6D will be a huge step up and should allow you to get some great shots, just remember to pair it with a good lens as well. Which is another great point, since price is an issue, you may very well get more bang for buck by spending the extra money on a much better lens than stepping up to a 5D. « Show Less