|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Nikon to Canon switch... lenses?
Hi all, Been having more stuff published lately so wanted to move to FX body and lenses after having made less-than-stellar lens choices in the past (DX mostly). I was going to start from scratch on lenses and got an insane deal on a Canon 1Ds Mark III so I've jumped ship from Nikon. If you had that body and let's say $2000-$2500 US to start out with for lenses off the bat what would you buy? (Note: I know what I shoot, what lenses I can borrow from friends, etc and have an idea of the direction I'm going to go but I want to hear what you guys would do.) Oct 12 12 07:15 am Link Personally, a 24-70 MK 1 (I love this lens, I couldn't better it and won't upgrade unless I absolutely have no choice in the matter) and a 35L. I have the 24-70, but not the 35L yet. I've got a 17-40L too, which is nice unless you're in low light, an 85 1.8 which I love, and a 50 1.8 that I use quite often too. I've also got a 28mm 2.8 that I use on my 40d as a carry around normal. But I really want the 35L  Oct 12 12 07:23 am Link A variant of the 70-200L which one would depend on how much you want other lenses as well. Either the 85 or 135L For 2500 or fairly close you could probably get the 70-200L f4, and 135L Oct 12 12 07:23 am Link 35mm/1.4L, 85mm/1.8, 135mm/2.0L They are the only three lenses I have or want to have. The 85/1.8 is light, small, fast focusing, very very good; relatively cheap. The other two are amazing. Oct 12 12 07:37 am Link Amazed that no one first asked what you shoot beyond what is in your port. Starting point for me is what were the FLs that you used the most with the DX camera, multiply by 1.5 and start looking at glass with that FL, either zoom or fixed FL. Then start looking for recommendations of which specific lenses will best meet your needs and budget. Oct 12 12 09:47 am Link From your folio, a 24-70 - V1 or V2 - and a 70-200 - either V1 or V2 f2.8 or f4 IS. The V2 lenses are sharper but unless you're really looking for absolute sharpness, the difference isn't much. The 70-200 f4 IS is one of the best overall value lenses you can get Maybe a 35L if you do some natural light work. Oct 12 12 09:57 am Link Thanks for the replies all. Most everything in my port here was shot for fun. I shoot mostly action sports with a few concerts and nightclub gigs thrown in. I'm looking at: 17-40 f.4 L 50 1.4 70-200 f2.8 L Mark I (used) maybe adding a 1.4x or 2x converter if I've got the money. Edit: Going to start doing a few more landscapes as well - that's why I'm going towards the 17-40. Oct 12 12 10:46 am Link If you're staying on doing People / Portraits stuff ... stay around 35mm to maybe 200mm ... Zoom lenses like 17-40mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8 and maybe 70-200mm 2.8 will make your photography life easier ... Personally, I'm using primes most of the time ... so 35mm, 50mm & 85mm ... I've learned my lessons, too many lenses, not enough shooting - so now I'm about 'keep it light, keep it simple' ...  If you do landscape & wildlife ... now that's a diff. story simce you might need something more specific (wider or longer mm) My 2 cents ... Oct 12 12 11:01 am Link I have and use the 24-70mm f2.8 Mark I, but if you don't need the f2.8 for any reason at all and happy to settle for f4, I would recommend the 24-105mm f4L IS because of it's IS capabilites (VR on your old Nikon ways). . Oct 12 12 05:54 pm Link Robert Helm wrote: v a r i a n t wrote: That's why Oct 12 12 06:33 pm Link Phil Drinkwater wrote: It seems to me those are the two "go to" lenses for everyone. Oct 12 12 07:21 pm Link v a r i a n t wrote: I actually find the 70 to 200 f4 to be a sharper lens, [or at least the lens I have] would not suggest the 2X converter just the 1.4X Oct 12 12 07:32 pm Link v a r i a n t wrote: Just a note on the 70-200mm, f/2.8, L Mark I Oct 12 12 07:39 pm Link |
