So.. Full frame then

[patric]

Congrats! Make sure to read the manual cover to cover. Also, you might find this guide helpful for setting up your banks.

I also use my right eye, because that's my dominant eye. The better question is... do you keep your other eye closed or open when you frame your shot?

I use my right eye. I usually keep my left eye closed, but it depends on what I'm shooting. If it's something where I need to keep some form of situational awareness, I keep the left eye open, like shooting football from the sidelines, etc but I haven't done that for a while.

 

[madFive]

Grats on the new gear guys! Looking forward to seeing your shots!

My trip to DC is next week, which will be my first opportunity in a while to do a good bit of photography.

I got my rental reservation for D600 in now - can't wait to play with it next week!
I'm still hoping to have enough saved up by the end of this year to make a purchase, but no more often than I'm getting to shoot photos these days, it might make more sense to just stick to rentals for a while.

 

[madFive]

Picked up the rental D600 today - this thing is too cool!

The 50/1.4G is tack-sharp on it - looks great to me! And of course the true 50mm length on FX is a thing of beauty. The 24/2.8D, well I haven't been able to tell if it's really sharp enough at 1:1, but it's definitely plenty sharp for the interwebs or smaller prints - and I LOVE the wider true 24mm focal length on the FX!

Going to visit family in DC later this week - can't wait to get out and see the sights through the FX body! Hopefully some good shots incoming next week...

 

[northrop]

^you gonna buy that toy before the end of the year Have fun with it

 

[madFive]

^you gonna buy that toy before the end of the year Have fun with it

Yeah, that's the plan. Next tax season, worst case scenario.

Takes a lot of will-power to stick with a budget, but I'm slowly getting the hang of it.

 

[sed8em]

I just made the jump to full frame.
Bought a 5D classic that has had the mirror fix for a good price.
Don't have the cash for a mkii or mkiii 5d at the moment.

Debating now on what lens to pair with it. I have the 50mm 1.4 already.
Not sure if I want to buy a 24-105L IS, or get a combo of primes like an 85mm 1.8 + either a 20mm or 28mm prime. Decisions decisions.
I like the idea of the 24-105 as a walk around lens that can do a little bit of everything, and use the 50mm for wide aperture work.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Wouldn't get the 24-105L; you'll wind up with it anyway if you upgrade your camera (and you'll want to). The 85/1.8 is a must for the price, and the 28/2.8 IS keeps going on sale for ~$400. Otherwise, the 35/2 would be a good wider lens, though it's build quality is as bad as the 50/1.8 II.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

24-105's are cheap (relatively) and plentiful on the used market. But you already have a 50mm prime, I'd argue you already have a walking around lens. I'd probably expand the prime set in your shoes, but it is also is a question of what sort of shoots you're going to be going on. If you're going to be doing portraits then I would say primes no question. If you're going to spend the time to scout locations and then shoot those locations, as in landscapes, I'd still use primes. The usage case I'd use zooms for is if you don't plan at all. Still even in that case 50mm and zooming with your feet is more than doable (Henri Cartier-Bresson literally made his entire career with a Leica 3 and a 50mm prime, and he was the definitive master of street and photo journalistic photography).

I'd get the 85 f1.8 first and the 35 f/2 second. If you can afford the 35mm f/2 IS, so much the better as it comes with a nice quality boost (a so called non-L, L-lens), but it's pricey. Both the 35mm and 85mm can be had for $250-$300 used (The 35mm f/2 IS on the other hand is still too new and in demand. I haven't seen one for less than $800). After that it's a matter of usage cases, do you need/want wider or do you need/want longer?
Wider you have the 24mm f/2.8 (preferably IS) and longer the only options (other than zooms) are all L lenses (other than the 135mm softfocus and the 100mm f/2 USM which I'd probably skip). Some more and some less expensive than others. The 135L is killer and can be had for as little as $800 on the used market if you look around long enough (more commonly $900-$1k).
The difference in focal length between 135mm and 200mm isn't that great. If you'd like to see the difference, I recommend renting a 70-200. They usually have a 135 marking on the barrel and while looking through the lens you can see what 135mm looks like then zoom to 200mm. Surprisingly close. If you'd rather, the 200mm f/2.8L II USM is also sharp. Having a 70-200mm is an option as well. the f/4 variants can be had for not a lot of money if you're okay with something slower, but I have to say that at that focal length it's a great advantage to have that extra stop. The best price performance I think is the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MK1 if you can find it used, usually get snapped up quick. Barring that the f/4 IS version is less expensive and much lighter. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II will cost you near as much as a nice FF body, even used.

 

[sed8em]

24-105's are cheap (relatively) and plentiful on the used market. But you already have a 50mm prime, I'd argue you already have a walking around lens. I'd probably expand the prime set in your shoes, but it is also is a question of what sort of shoots you're going to be going on. If you're going to be doing portraits then I would say primes no question. If you're going to spend the time to scout locations and then shoot those locations, as in landscapes, I'd still use primes. The usage case I'd use zooms for is if you don't plan at all. Still even in that case 50mm and zooming with your feet is more than doable (Henri Cartier-Bresson literally made his entire career with a Leica 3 and a 50mm prime, and he was the definitive master of street and photo journalistic photography).

I'd get the 85 f1.8 first and the 35 f/2 second. If you can afford the 35mm f/2 IS, so much the better as it comes with a nice quality boost (a so called non-L, L-lens), but it's pricey. Both the 35mm and 85mm can be had for $250-$300 used (The 35mm f/2 IS on the other hand is still too new and in demand. I haven't seen one for less than $800). After that it's a matter of usage cases, do you need/want wider or do you need/want longer?
Wider you have the 24mm f/2.8 (preferably IS) and longer the only options (other than zooms) are all L lenses (other than the 135mm softfocus and the 100mm f/2 USM which I'd probably skip). Some more and some less expensive than others. The 135L is killer and can be had for as little as $800 on the used market if you look around long enough (more commonly $900-$1k).
The difference in focal length between 135mm and 200mm isn't that great. If you'd like to see the difference, I recommend renting a 70-200. They usually have a 135 marking on the barrel and while looking through the lens you can see what 135mm looks like then zoom to 200mm. Surprisingly close. If you'd rather, the 200mm f/2.8L II USM is also sharp. Having a 70-200mm is an option as well. the f/4 variants can be had for not a lot of money if you're okay with something slower, but I have to say that at that focal length it's a great advantage to have that extra stop. The best price performance I think is the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MK1 if you can find it used, usually get snapped up quick. Barring that the f/4 IS version is less expensive and much lighter. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II will cost you near as much as a nice FF body, even used.

You hit on one of the key reasons why I was considering the 24-105L. I can't afford anything else that would give me any sort of medium telephoto.
I would love to get a 28 prime, 85 1.8, and the 135. But the 135 is out of my price at the moment.
I was thinking of adding the nice primes that you mentioned in the future, and I could hang on to the 24-105L as a versatile travel and walk around lens.

This deal for a brand new 24-105L is hard to pass up: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Autofocus-Lens-/300919803763

 

[UnknownSouljer]

You hit on one of the key reasons why I was considering the 24-105L. I can't afford anything else that would give me any sort of medium telephoto.
I would love to get a 28 prime, 85 1.8, and the 135. But the 135 is out of my price at the moment.
I was thinking of adding the nice primes that you mentioned in the future, and I could hang on to the 24-105L as a versatile travel and walk around lens.

This deal for a brand new 24-105L is hard to pass up: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Autofocus-Lens-/300919803763

Well, for $600 you could have the 35 f/2 and the 85 f/1.8. But if you want a zoom, get the zoom.

Basically the options go down like this:
Primes are better at: Sharpness, contrast, distortion (as in there is less of it), chromatic aberration (less of it), Faster - in terms of f-stop (generally speaking), weigh less.
Zooms are better at: Versatility in focal length, and with that serve a variety of focal lengths without having to swap lenses. Also as they cover a variety of focal lengths, in theory you could carry less lenses. That happens less in practice than in theory though (I find).

Zooms have only two advantages. Variety of focal length and (presumably) needing to swap lenses less (I guess a third with the theory of having to pack less lenses).
In general, the primes will have literally every other advantage over the zooms. It generally boils down to optical quality vs versatility and which is more important to you. Neither answer is 'wrong', zooms definitely have their place, some zooms are utterly phenomenal and I will never get rid of them (like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II) and get close to what primes can output, but in order to close the gap in quality, there comes a hefty price tag.

In any case like I said earlier, if you feel more comfortable with the zoom, get the zoom. The thing is, at the end of the day, these are going to end up being your tools. You have to use them, not me. I'm giving you suggestions based upon my opinions, but if you end up taking my advice but not liking what you end up with then my opinion has no point or purpose. Use what makes sense for you for the kind of work that you want to do.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

You hit on one of the key reasons why I was considering the 24-105L. I can't afford anything else that would give me any sort of medium telephoto.
I would love to get a 28 prime, 85 1.8, and the 135. But the 135 is out of my price at the moment.
I was thinking of adding the nice primes that you mentioned in the future, and I could hang on to the 24-105L as a versatile travel and walk around lens.

This deal for a brand new 24-105L is hard to pass up: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Autofocus-Lens-/300919803763

That's not a bad deal at all- and it likely comes from a 'parted' kit, where someone bought a 5D III or 6D with the lens in a kit and then sold the lens, or both.

Just don't pay any more for it .

 

[jonneymendoza]

Well, for $600 you could have the 35 f/2 and the 85 f/1.8. But if you want a zoom, get the zoom.

Basically the options go down like this:
Primes are better at: Sharpness, contrast, distortion (as in there is less of it), chromatic aberration (less of it), Faster - in terms of f-stop (generally speaking), weigh less.
Zooms are better at: Versatility in focal length, and with that serve a variety of focal lengths without having to swap lenses. Also as they cover a variety of focal lengths, in theory you could carry less lenses. That happens less in practice than in theory though (I find).

Zooms have only two advantages. Variety of focal length and (presumably) needing to swap lenses less (I guess a third with the theory of having to pack less lenses).
In general, the primes will have literally every other advantage over the zooms. It generally boils down to optical quality vs versatility and which is more important to you. Neither answer is 'wrong', zooms definitely have their place, some zooms are utterly phenomenal and I will never get rid of them (like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II) and get close to what primes can output, but in order to close the gap in quality, there comes a hefty price tag.

In any case like I said earlier, if you feel more comfortable with the zoom, get the zoom. The thing is, at the end of the day, these are going to end up being your tools. You have to use them, not me. I'm giving you suggestions based upon my opinions, but if you end up taking my advice but not liking what you end up with then my opinion has no point or purpose. Use what makes sense for you for the kind of work that you want to do.

Some zooms are actually on par IQ wise then primes such as the 70-200 f2.8 mk2 that you have

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Some zooms are actually on par IQ wise then primes such as the 70-200 f2.8 mk2 that you have

I think you missed slightly what I was saying. It's a fanstastic lens, and I won't ever sell it unless/until the EF mount becomes obsolete. What I said was you have to pay an exorbitant amount of money for the a zoom to stack up to a prime, and even then it won't do some things as well. Examples? Well the 70-200 that we're talking about has pinch distortion on the short end and the opposite on the long end. It is also 'only' f/2.8, whereas you could have the faster 85mm or 135mm. It's heavier, undisputedly.

Still it has excellent versatility, it's sharp all the way through/corner to corner, has superb IS, and focuses quick and well. It's these reasons why it's in the bag, and less for the image quality reasons. The 135L as an example is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, and the 70-200 as great as it is isn't as sharp as that (or as fast as that, or be virtually distortion-less).

So to reiterate, it's about cost, versatility, and image quality. You can't pick them all, you have to decide which ones are the most important to you.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

So to reiterate, it's about cost, versatility, and image quality. You can't pick them all, you have to decide which ones are the most important to you.

Always good advice from this guy. Lenses like the 85L, 100L (when not used as a macro lens), 135L, and even the 200L (the oft-unmentioned stretched version of the 135L) all typically outperform the 70-200/2.8L IS II, but to add just two of those lenses to your bag will pay for the telezoom.

And they don't outperform it by much. The 85L and 135L bring portrait advantages, sure, but they are incredibly specialized lenses; the 100L is a bit more versatile in contrast, being lightweight and sharper than any other macro, but the 200L really has no advantage except that it's smaller and lighter, and quite cheap, if you're just looking for quality at 200mm.

Overall, a 70-200/2.8L IS II and 85/1.8 paring, along with a standard zoom or standard primes makes a great kit for general photography, portraits, and many events, especially if you throw a decent teleconverter in there and some extension tubes and reversing rings for macro work.

 

[sed8em]

Thanks for all the advice.

Bought a 5D classic, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, and 24-105mm L IS. Will eventually add either an 85mm or 135mm. And possibly the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, not quite ready to spend that coin yet. Still have to pay for our house this December that we're building.

Man, I'm loving the solid "clunk" the mirror makes when I press the shutter button. And the wonderful depth of field with my f1.4 lens. I did some pixel peeping on some shots versus the T1i, with all other things being as equal as I could hastily make them, and I have noticed some increased dynamic range between the two as well. The two separate control wheels for shutter speed and aperture are fantastic too. I hated only having one control wheel for both on my Rebel. I'm keeping the Rebel though as it was a gift and it has its own strengths. The 50mm f1.4 on it is an excellent portrait lens. And the 55-250mm IS zoom is good enough for outdoor wildlife, until I can afford something decent ($$$) for the 5D.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Thanks for all the advice.

Bought a 5D classic, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, and 24-105mm L IS. Will eventually add either an 85mm or 135mm. And possibly the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, not quite ready to spend that coin yet. Still have to pay for our house this December that we're building.

Man, I'm loving the solid "clunk" the mirror makes when I press the shutter button. And the wonderful depth of field with my f1.4 lens. I did some pixel peeping on some shots versus the T1i, with all other things being as equal as I could hastily make them, and I have noticed some increased dynamic range between the two as well. The two separate control wheels for shutter speed and aperture are fantastic too. I hated only having one control wheel for both on my Rebel. I'm keeping the Rebel though as it was a gift and it has its own strengths. The 50mm f1.4 on it is an excellent portrait lens. And the 55-250mm IS zoom is good enough for outdoor wildlife, until I can afford something decent ($$$) for the 5D.

Grats on the buys. With what you have in the bag, you can go really far photographically speaking. What will be interesting to see is whether you turn more into a prime shooter or whether your zooms will get more play. Like you say, the 50mm will serve you well.