DSLR options

[Keith]

Just remember the original 5d was introduced in 2005, the d700 was in 2008. It'll drop to the same sort of price by 2013, don't you worry :angel:

I suppose in that context it's held an acceptable value then and maybe you're right.

Nikon is a strange brand IMO ... certain cameras have held a high resale value well beyond what was expected. The D70 comes to mind!

 

[Gid]

I have a 5D with 50 1.4 and 24-105L. I can vouch for the camera and the quality of the images it produces. My 50 1.4 has been entirely without problem and this lens scores more highly than the 50 1.2L on FM, so dissing the lens may not be helpful to the OP.

 

[Tim Gray]

Tim, give the sigma 50mm a go, and thank me later. Make sure you get the latest serial number one possible - they changed the finish and tightened up QC. Mine is wonderful.

It's just so BIG. 😀

Hey, the Canon 50/1.4 isn't the worst lens in the world. I used to be the one on forums who would say, "I've never had a problem with mine!" But now I have. It's pretty sharp and affordable. I just really wish it was built like the other lenses in its class in the Canon lineup: 85/1.8, 28/1.8, and 100/2. It stinks to pay $400 for a lens and realize there's a good possibility that there is a $100 repair bill in your future.

My other complaint about it is that while it's still reasonable sharp at f/1.4-f/2, it's relatively low contrast there and gets a hazy, 'dreamy' look. Once stopped down a bit, it changes in character. Most semi-modern RF lenses in my experience do NOT have this Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde personality, and are more consistent through than aperture range. My Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM does have a split personality, but it's 60 years old; I'm ok with that.

It's just something to be aware of.

As far as the 28/1.8 goes, it's a decent lens. Like I said, it's not the sharpest and catches a lot flak online, but I don't have a problem with that. It's biggest flaw in my book is that you can get some devastating flare with it that can really ruin a shot if you aren't careful.

The 17-40L I thought was a great lens. I had one for a couple years and really liked it.

More importantly, if you aren't already invested in Canon, the D700 is supposed to be a great camera.

 

[filmtwit]

Here's the thing, I can always use Nikon glass on my Canon, but I can't use Canon glass (or a lot of other branded glass) on Nikon.

Canon's versatility for use of glass really does make it better choice. Plus, Canon L glass is to die for.

Like Akiva said, I'd go for a gently used D700.

I much prefer Nikkor lenses to Canon ones.

 

[gavinlg]

My other complaint about it is that while it's still reasonable sharp at f/1.4-f/2, it's relatively low contrast there and gets a hazy, 'dreamy' look.
...

The 17-40L I thought was a great lens. I had one for a couple years and really liked it.

Yeah I really disliked mine for that exact reason - hazy and glowy at f1.4. If I'm going to buy a fast lens it's because I'm going to be shooting it wide open. The "sigmalux", while big, has none of that glow wide open and almost no vignetting. Probably about as sharp at f1.4 as the canon is at f2.
I really like my 17-40L too - not sure why they get a bad rep!

I have a 5D with 50 1.4 ... and this lens scores more highly than the 50 1.2L on FM, so dissing the lens may not be helpful to the OP.

The only reason it scores more on fm forums is because 99% of the people that rate it as 'better' haven't used the 50L - they just rely on internet whispers which are based off shooting test charts.

Real world usage - the difference between the two is comparable to the old summilux's and the new ASPH ones.

Sorry to the Original Poster if I've gone too far off topic!

 

[Gid]

The only reason it scores more on fm forums is because 99% of the people that rate it as 'better' haven't used the 50L - they just rely on internet whispers which are based off shooting test charts.

Real world usage - the difference between the two is comparable to the old summilux's and the new ASPH ones.

Sorry to the Original Poster if I've gone too far off topic!

I think this is a bit unfair. There are 355 reviews of the 50 1.4 on FM and I doubt they are all shooting test charts. The reviews are not comparing the 50 1.4 to the 50 1.2L so its not a better than opinion. It just seems that quite a lot of people seem happy with the 1.4. If, however, you do shoot wide open that might put a different light on the comparison. I very rarely shoot wide open, but when I have I've been content. Of course, I may just have low standards😉

 

[Fraser]

Have you seen the size of the 50 1.2 !

 

[Tim Gray]

The 50/1.2 seems to catch flak for it's focus shift. Other than that, it seems like a great lens, if you are ok with the price and size.

 

[MatthewThompson]

Don't overlook the Sigma 50 1.4 for the Canon. I'm using one on a 5D and it's magnificent. 95% as good as the 1.2L for a third the price. This is my second Sigma EX lens and I've been very happy with them. I'm following the new 85 1.4 closely too, it's going to be a budget substitute for the (stellar but very expensive) 85 1.2.

 

[andredossantos]

Have you seen the size of the 50 1.2 !

Size is not a problem for everyone. I don't mind the size of the 50L because its the only lens I carry around with my 5D.

 

[andredossantos]

I think this is a bit unfair. There are 355 reviews of the 50 1.4 on FM and I doubt they are all shooting test charts. The reviews are not comparing the 50 1.4 to the 50 1.2L so its not a better than opinion. It just seems that quite a lot of people seem happy with the 1.4. If, however, you do shoot wide open that might put a different light on the comparison. I very rarely shoot wide open, but when I have I've been content. Of course, I may just have low standards😉

It may be unfair, but I tried both lenses and can tell you that unless my copy of the 50mm 1.4 was bad, the 50L was significantly better at and near wide open. Stopped down, the 50mm 1.4 was just as good. This is just my experience but I have to agree with fdigital that one has to try both to see the difference.

The hazy/glowy/dark look of the 50mm 1.4 really got to me and at wide open the 1.2 kills the 1.4 in terms of sharpness.

 

[-doomed-]

It's looking like the 5D will be my spring time purchase, ill probably add in a 17-40 F4L and a 70-200 F4L along with a fast 50 for low-light at some point.
As much as I like using RF's the other capabilities an SLR offers is making them tool for the job.
There's still that wanting to use an M8, since I have my selection of lenses and I am used to an RF as my main shooter. I guess I'll have to get reacquainted with shooting through the lens.
Thanks for the help here guys.

 

[chrispiper]

Before you spring for the 17-40 L think about finding a copy of the EF 20-35 f/2.8 L. Yes it's a little old, but it's a great performer. I've thought a few times about trying to trade it in for a newer 17-35 or 16-35 but it's hard to justify the cost when I can't really find anything wrong with it. And on a 5D it's truly a wide angle. Just a thought.

Chris

 

[-doomed-]

Good to know, Ill look into one if I happen upon it.

 

[Soothsayerman]

I sold the 70-200 a few years ago. I got involved in shooting rangefinders as a hobby and sold my digital gear. Bought 10D for $50 and ended up selling it to pay off some bills. I wish I had kept the 70-200 and the 20D at times.
The 5D may be the choice for me.
The 70-200 and 17-40 are probably in the running as well.

I would get the 5DII and the 50mm 1.4.

I have bought the 17-40L and the 70-200 2.8 before I got the 50mm and the ironic thing is that I use the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 more than anything.

The 50mm is so versatile and so light compared to the 70-200 and it is such an great bargain for the output it produces.

If you do mainly landscape then sure, get the 17-40L, but otherwise I would get the 50 first and then go from there.

Good luck!

 

[-doomed-]

The 5D mk2 is out of my range, I'm going with a used 5D and new glass.
For the type of work I'd be doing the 70-200 will be more versatile.

 

[sprokitt]

So I have an M8 which I enjoy. However, a few weeks ago I finally had need for a DSLR. While I really wanted a D700 I got such a good deal on a used D300 I decided to give it a try. I must say, after using the D300 images from the M8 really are lacking. The low-light performance of the Nikon DX sensor is remarkable, and I know the FX sensor is even better. I also know that Canon's sensors are at least Nikon's equals.

If you only get one camera I would go for the DSLR before the M8. The M8 is a fine camera, but in flat-out image quality the DSLR will likely win. I've not shot an M9 but I know the images are better. This said, you can buy 3 d700s for the price of 1 M9 - and - the D700 image quality is better.

A 5D with a 50 will do fine. I'm sure the 50/1.2 is an amazing lens, but unless you need the extra stop the price is hard to justify, especially given the low light performance of the Canon.

This begs the question, why doesn't Leica just put a Nikon or Canon sensor in their body and get on with it?? At a minimum they should license the image processor and NR software.

Oh well. Good luck with your purchase.

 

[Soothsayerman]

Bah, the 50mm 1.2 is very maginally better than the 1.4 yet costs almost 5 times as much. It is not worth it. The difference in savings is better spent on the 85mm 1.2 or the 70-200 is usm II, or if you want to go the other way, the 351.4 L.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Just my two cents to go conservative and actually try these different cameras out. While the full-frame finders are great, the higher-end DX size bodies have wonderful finders that really negate most of the practical reasons for the full frame. The new Nikon D7000 and the Pentax K5 look to be great. And even though cameras like the D90 and D300 are now "long in the tooth", they are still fine - only incrementally "less" than the newest.

Plus Nikon has some nicer AFS DX lenses now, like the 35/1.8 - it's only $200 and as good as can be. For $1100-$1200 you can have a D300 w 35DX and it will probably do everything you need. Pick up a couple inexpensive primes or the now bargain-priced 17-55/2.8 DX.

Keep some money in your pocket in these uncertain times, save it or spend it on experiences to make better photos.

Plus... well, I never hated Canon... but I don't like them.

 

[gavinlg]

Bah, the 50mm 1.2 is very maginally better than the 1.4 yet costs almost 5 times as much. It is not worth it. The difference in savings is better spent on the 85mm 1.2 or the 70-200 is usm II, or if you want to go the other way, the 351.4 L.

Have you actually used and compared them both for any length of time in real world shooting?