Home Forums Gear Photography Who makes the best series of Lenses for D-SLR's?........................

I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to need to expand my Camera collection to include a D-SLR. On another thread a couple of members here suggested that the best way to go is to decide on which lenses you want before deciding on a Camera body. At the moment all my camera's are Point and shoots, 2 Sony's with Zeiss lenses and 2 Cannon's an 850 and a G-9.

I don't have any lenses now that I'd want to use on a new high-quality D-SLR so I like to figure out who makes the best lenses at reasonable prices.

Utah-lefty mentioned that the Sony's are a little limited in lens numbers but the one he is testing now certainly looks like an excellent (if expensive) one. I believe that I also saw that Zeiss is making a couple of lenses for Sony camera's I'm sure they are good but definately not cheap. I've really enjoyed the Zeiss lensed Sony Point and shoot camera's I've had so far and have gotten pretty good pictures out of them. \

Canon's I guess are one of the more popular D-SLR's. I like the colors etc. I've gotten from my Cannon's but my G-9 in particular has some barrel distortion in the lens I find quite disappointing. It was supposed to be the top end of point and shoots but though I really like the features of the camera the distortion has somewhat soured me on it. I guess this makes me wonder about the quality of Cannon lenses though I'm sure the D-SLR lenses are a different kettle of fish altogether. Any comments pro or con on Cannon lenses? I liked the in hand feel of the Cannon's I looked at over the Sony and Nikon body's.

I haven't owned a Nikon camera before but the name of course is famous. A couple of the Nikon's appealed to me, the D90 and D300 especially. These were on the upper end of what I was thinking of spending but if they are worth it I'd prefer to buy something I really want and love even if it's more than I originally thought of spending.

As far as what I'll be shooting it's varied. I like to take pics of my kids but the Point and shoots are probably best for them. I like taking pics of different knives and guns and recently bought a lighting system to improve those. I also like to do outdoor and wildlife photography so I would like a good all around zoom lens in addition to a Macro for closeups.

Thanks for any and all advice. Some of what you guys have said have already given me some good things to think about...................................DJ

You're correct in that you cannot infer much about a company's DLSRs by the lens quality of their P&Ss.

Much also depends on what "best lenses for reasonable prices" means.

The limited number of Zeiss lenses in the Sony line are fabulous but they start around $1200.
I suspect you'll find much the same in the very complete Canon and Nikon lines (ie: if you're not going to spend $1000+ per lens it doesn't mean much to talk lenses that cost twice that.)

spend a little time at Photozone.de, one of the best lens evaluation / test sites. It's not a complete listing but there are many Nikon and Canon lenses tested.

Compare the lenses you might actually buy rather than each company's super-duper-bestest one.

Thanks for the input UT. I'm a fan of Zeiss optics and might consider buying one or two of their lenses over time. I'm beginning to think that I'd almost rather have 1 really good lens to start with than a couple decent ones. I've got several Riflescopes and Binoculars in the price ranges you've mentioned so a couple camera lenses wouldn't be out of the question if I convince myself I can use thier capabilities.
I'll check out the website you mentioned.....................DJ

The Canon G9 is commonly accepted as one of the better P&S cameras. However it is most assuredly not the best. At roughly $500 that should be expected. If you are after top quality IQ you are going to spend serious $ to get DSLR quality in a P&S. (price Leica ) If you are not wanting to trade up to a DSLR then you may want to consider trying a Sigma DP1.

http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=43905

As far a Canon goes I have had very good luck with their glass. Pro glass is expensive irrespective of brand and you can expect a 70-200 f2.8 lens from Canon, Nikon or Sony to run $1600-1700. So before you decide which is "best" (good luck getting any one to agree on that) I suggest trying to figure out which is "Best" for you. Sony and others suffer from lens availability and selection. Nikon or Canon are your best bets (IMO). I shot Nikon for years and was very happy. Now I shoot Canon and I'm very happy. You really need to decide which glass YOU want then see if it's available in the brand you favor. For example maybe the 70-200 f2.8 is a bit expensive for you so you would prefer a 70-200 f4 ($1,000 from Canon). Is this available from Sony or Nikon?
Still too expensive? Then you need to see if a similar focal length is available in a variable aperature lens in a standard series. Closer to $300 for a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS.
This process can help simplify your brand choice.
As far as bodies go the D300 is a great camera but at $1500+ (body only) it should be. Today you can buy a Canon 40D for $960 and Canon includes software. (not included with Nikon)
I think it's best to be honest with yourself about your ability and how far you want to go with this hobby. A more expensive body will NOT make you a better photographer and before you start dropping the big bucks really ask yourself how much time and money you want to spend learning photoshop or other programs. It's a slippery slope and it gets expensive quickly.
IE; I easilly have $1200 invested in a single tripod and ball head. And that's not exactly top of the line stuff.
If you can, try to give us an idea of your budget and what focal length lenses you might want. With that info we can probably offer a little more specific advice.
Remember that Canon and Nikon offer standard glass and pro glass. The tricky caveat in your question is "reasonable price". That's very subjective.

Definitely take the time and figure out the glass you want then decide on which brand will better suit you....I started with Pentax and the camera DSLR I had was great, they suffered in the lens department so I have gone with Canon because it better suits my style of shooting.

I don't think you can go wrong, no matter what you choose; Nikon or Cannon. Both are top quality products, and the choice boils down to personal bias', and/or whether or not one brand possibly offers an oddball niche lens, that the other doesn't. Think ergonomics as well. Which camera body/lens feels best to you? Does using the controls feel natural to you?

There are so many things that are key to capturing a great image(composure, light, using good technique, etc..) that come way before what brand of gear you use. Kind of like bullet choice. You can use the best bullet made, but you still have to put it in the right place.

Jeff

First of all thanks to all of you for help and advice. Here are a few pics that you might critique that illustrate one of the issues I was having with my G9 as well as some that I feel are a little better.

After reading some of the lens reviews I think that I might be seeing something that's more common even among higher priced lenses i.e. Barrel Distortion at the extreme closeup of a zoom. Here's a pic of what was bothering me:




Notice how the pistol on top looks like it's banana shaped. This was taken from directly overhead with the zoom at it's closest. I didn't get as bad of distortion when I zoomed out and cropped the pictures. I guess what I didn't like is that I enjoy taking lots of close in pictures, not just of guns but of flowers etc. and I want something that works good closeup.

I've gotten a couple pictures that I liked pretty well and give me a little more hope for the camera though I realize I need to work a lot on my Photographic ability:



I probably should have taken some more shots here at different shutter speeds to get different looks of the water etc. but I kinda like that pic anyway.

Here's a picture of my sons B-day cake. I thought the camera did pretty well as far as details and getting good colors here:




So I guess the camera has good potential as a P.A.S and maybe I need to work in the middle of the zoom for Macro shots. I bought a set of lights to be able to improve the lighting etc. on them. But I still think that I might be able to appreciate the detail quality of a good D-SLR for close in shots especially.

Other critiques and/or idead for improvements are welcomed, I'm NOT an experienced photographer and want to learn more.


Again, thanks for the help and advice...........................................DJ

I have number of cameras both 35 mm and Digital. My favorite brand is Nikon with my D-300 Digital and F3 35 mm being my favorite two. Nikon has the best lens and seems to be the choice of most professional photographers. Nikon would be my pick.

one thing you'll find DJ is that all zooms are going to have some barrel distortion at the wide end, usually changing to pincushion distortion at the high end. this is more dramatic in the wider angle lenses as well as in the less expensive ones. the quality of the glass cannot completely repeal the laws of physics.

barrel distortion is typically negligible in well made prime (fixed fl) lens - and probably a macro at that.

if you're doing much shooting like in the pistols above, you'll need to invest in a good prime lens, IMO.

Just in good fun of course but boy do I ever dissagree with that. It really depends on what segment of professional photographers you poll. If you look at sports shooters watch a game this weekend. When you see the press box all of those white lenses are Canon.

I don't completly dissagree with Lefty but a standard zoom should be capable of getting a very useable close range shot without the excessive barrel distortion. You can push almost any piece of glass to an extreme to exploit some weak point. The downside of a DSLR compared to a P&S is cost and physical size. The upside is you can change glass to suit your shooting style.
Here's a shot from a lowly Canon EFS 18-55 kit lens taken with an XTi. Used this little piece of plastic sells for a whopping $75. (Zero PP!)




And another from a Canon S80 P&S. IIR zero PP.

Canon or Nikon, both are top quality, the choice of pros, and offer a great variety of lenses to choose from. Second, the camera bodies of their more higher-end models are made for the heavy use that pros put them to. If you're serious, that's the way I'd go.

Define "best".

Best for the money?

Absolute best optics?

Best for what purpose? There are some specialty lenses that only certain manufactureres make.

Best selection?

Like binoculars or riflescopes, you get what you pay for.

Canon has the best selection, and makes some very superior pro-quality lenses. Check out those white lenses on the sidelines of football games...all Canon. Canon also makes some specialty lenses that are unavailable elsewhere. I'm a Canon user, and I like what Canon has done in the photography area.

That being said, of course many companies make comparable quality lenses.

In the film age, most pros used Nikon, but Canon dominates that market now, and in fact was overtaking Nikon even in the film age.

It took Nikon many years, Until 2008, to get a full frame DSLR to market. Meantime, Canon captured the pro market with the full frame cameras EOS 1 and 5 D series.

Sorry to bring this thread to the top, as I've been away for a while. I just have to comment that this is the most misguided, misinformed post I think I've ever read here.

First - "D300" and "most professional photographers" do not even belong on the same page, or in the same paragraph.

Second - Canon has the best glass, period. I'd love it to be the other way around, as I used to shoot strictly Nikon, but it's just the way it is, and I had to switch. Now, of course Nikon has some very nice lenses, but the entire collection as a whole just cannot compare. There is ONE Nikon glass that's currently superior to the equivalent Canon offering and that's the 14-24/2.8. I've contemplated even buying a D3 JUST for use with this lens, but I can't bring myself to do it. The 1Ds3 is just too nice for me to revert to a D3.

Just my $.02

Should of bought a Nikon.

Uh, BeeDub, that is one heck of a nice pic and all, but VTi's pics are peerless.

In all honesty, I think he'd do the same whether he was shooting Canon or Nikon (or Olympus, or Sony, yada, yada).

Methinks he do wear the crown!

It still amazes me how sharp the IQ can be from the XTi.

LOL, should have bought a Canon











By the way. I tried the new Nikons, only because I wanted to try the new 14-24/2.8. They (D3 and D700) were returned the next day. No comparison to a 1DsIII.



Thanks Ric! That's a heck of a nice compliment.

I agree Rick.

A fellow professor here spends more on his photography hobby than some people earn in a year.

He used to use Nikon exclusively (Hasselblad before that) and he still says that anybody will be perfectly satisfied with Nikon lenses... unless they try a Canon L series lens.

He has made the transition and uses Canon equipment now (and only L series lenses). I am sure that he will dump the entire Canon system and switch if somebody else pulls into the lead regarding lens quality. He keeps checking to see if Canon has lost the lead, but, according to him, so far... not.

Note that these L series lenses are Canon's top of the line ones and I do not think that their consumer lenses are better than Nikon or anybody else.

Finally, VTi obviously has a great eye for composition and considerable expertise in post-processing so he could use just about any system and make most of us look bad by comparison! However, if you have a really good monitor you will see that his pictures usually are technically a notch better too. I have noticed that a lot of his pictures are Canon L series lenses...

John

I'm still finding the Camera and lens situations somewhat bewildering.
Even if the Cannon L series lenses are the best out there, are they going to be as good in a non-full frame sensor less expensive DSLR like I'd be buying?
I think I'm leaning towards a Nikon D300 or a Cannon 50d. I've heard some negatives about the 50d such as needed a better lens than the normal kits come with etc. But maybe it would be good with an "L" series lens or two. Also think maybe a D300 with a 28-200 VR for all around and maybe a 50 or 60mm macro prime lens for Knives, Guns etc.. Still lots to think about but I still have a little time before cash is in hand to buy whatever I decide on.............................DJ

Full disclosure: I am a rank amateur.

I figured I'd invest in the lenses and swap camera bodies when it seemed a big jump in technology merited it.

You may not have a FF sensor now, but it's great to have the lenses for when you do make the jump.

I own three L lenses, all zooms. Happy with them all.

Needed something for indoor volleyball work, and Canon zooms max out at F2.8, so I jumped on a Canon 85mm F1.8. It's a non-L, cost me $350, and, I gotta say, the pics are sharp, sharp, sharp!

Now, lots of guys will tell you that that lens is too long on a crop, and it very well might be, but since all I have is a crop (40D), I'm good with it. Don't know any better.

I think I may get into another prime or two before it's all over, and when I'm ready fr a FF body, I'll be golden.

Were I starting over, if I could swing it, I'd do a Canon 24-105 or 24-70 and a 40D. You can rock with that for quite a while. One decision I made for myself is to make sure to buy all EF lenses, so they'll work on a FF if and when I decide to make the jump.

But like I said, I'm a rank newb. Take it for what it's worth.

rb

Rick makes some very good points above.

To answer your question regarding lens quality and crop sensors... Yes, actually the high quality L Canon lenses are even more important on a crop sensor due to pixel density. Since the APS-C (1.6x) sensors are much smaller area, in order to have the same quantity of pixels, they must be smaller and more densely packed on the sensor. Since they are so small and dense (compared to a FF sensor), they will show and expose flaws in cheaper glass much more easily than a larger sensor will. This is the sole reason you've heard the 50D demands better glass, as 15mpx on a crop sensor leave super small pixels, at high density. On the other hand, FF sensors are more demanding on glass at the outer edges, since this typically where lower quality glass shows much weakness. Vignetting (light falloff in the corners), and corner/edge softness will be much more apparent on a FF sensor. THis is kind of one "advantage" to a 1.6x, is that it crops out the edges of the image circle, which are usually the weak areas of any lens.

So basically what I'm saying is that ANY camera/sensor will benefit from better glass. Furthermore, glass is really 90% the contributor of great image quality, the SLR body is much less important.

As Rick said above, SLR bodies come and go very frequently. So really, it's far more advantageous to invest first in a quality kit of lenses, then upgrade the body as necessary.

What ever camp you choose, I'd definitely stay clear of the super range zooms, i.e. the 28-200mm or anything similar. It is very well known that quality zooms are never more than 3x, 4x tops, meaning the "long" end is 3x the "wide" end. Example is the 24-70L is a "3x" zoom, 24-105L is a "4x". The 28-200 is around a 7x zoom. Now, this may be convenient sometimes, but will absolutely NOT lend itself to the best image quality, not a chance. If this were the case, there would be no reason for anyone to own a whole stable of lenses. We'd just buy a "super zoom" and be done with it. Canon makes a 28-350mm or something like that, and it's just putrid. Stick with prime lenses and/or 3x-4x zooms.

My recommendation to you, for the uses you specified and just a great all around tool... a good used Canon 40D ($600-700), or a used 5D ($1300-1400). Get a nice "L" zoom for general work, and maybe a nice fast prime lens for lower light work, 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 like Rick. These Canon primes are very sharp, and rather cheap compared to the L zoom. Your camera system will be rather inexpensive, and I guarantee you that it will be capable of professional image quality. Many, many, many images from the 5D have been sold in super high end galleries, and magazine publications. The 5D is also a staple camera for a lot of wedding photographers, which says a lot because it's one of the most demanding situations a pro photographer can face, and for them the resulting quality of the images can not and will not be compromised in any way.

Very general info here. If you have anything more in depth you'd like to discuss, go ahead and ask away. That's what we're here for. Well, that and to find a good deal on a nice Gene Ingram blade

Rob

Again thanks for all the responses.

Rob (VTI) I've seen advertised new 5D bodies in the $1350-$1400 range in places like here:

http://www.prestigecamera.com/viewproduct.aspx?id=%20%20%203642705

and here:

http://www.broadwayphoto.com/cat/DigitalCameras/812240/EOS-5D/

I haven't called them to see if these are real deals, i.e. in stock ready to ship with all the necessary chargers etc.. But they seem tempting.

Do you think that an older full frame camera like the 5d would be better than a newer 50d with more "bells and Whistles", more fps and better LED? Or maybe even buy a "starter" DSLR like a XSi(450) and but the "L" series lenses and upgrade the body later.

I'm still deciding on exactly how much I'm willing to spend. I'm thinking $2Kish is where I want to start out at but I'm sure I'll be spending a lot more over the long haul. I've have quite a bit invested in other glass such as rifle scopes, spotters etc. and in those have found myself less pleased with less than the better grades of glass.

Do you think that a Eos 5d with say a 24-105 F4.0L would be good to start with or would I be better off with a 28-70 f/2.8L to start with and then add maybe a 70-200 f/2.8L later? How important would the faster lens be starting out?

What do you think of starting out with an inexpensive SLR like an XSi and then maybe buying something even better than the 5d later next year?

BTW, thanks for posting your pics earlier, they were so good they almost made my eyes pop!.............................DJ

DJ.

I think you're on the right track. Man, I'm not sure what I'd do regarding those choices of cameras. I personally would not get the 50D in your position. It will not offer anything that you'll benefit from over a nice used 40D, and for twice the cost. Now, the 5D is a whole other class of camera. Many people still feel it produces the best, cleanest image quality of any camera Canon makes. I've owned a pair of them, and the IQ is stunning. It's kind of a very basic camera regarding features, AF, etc... except that it houses one of the best sensors Canon has ever offered. There really will be a big difference over the XSi, or even 40/50D.
Please don't buy from those retailers mentioned above. There is a scam of some sort going on there. B&h, Calumet Photo, or Amazon.com along with a few others are the only way to go. They have fantastic return policies, should you be unhappy with your purchase for any reason. But, you'll spend much more money than buying a nice used camera. 5D's can be had used for around $1300 from reputable sellers right now, since the new 5DII is released. Some people are trying to dump theirs to have the latest and greatest, but the 5D is no less capable than it was yesterday, now that there's a new model released.

This is the way I'd go if I were you, away from the XSi. The interface of the 40D and 5D is MUCH different than the XTi/XSi... and much more like the Canon pro cameras. They also feel a lot more substantial/robust in hand than the entry level cameras. The Rebel series really feels like a toy compared to them.

The 5D + 24-105/4L-IS is a now classic combo that has been producing stunning files since their introduction. There's NO WAY you'd be disappointed with this kit.

I would say for general all around use, the f/4 with IS would probably be a better option for you than the f/2.8 without IS. This is a tough call since for different situations, each has advantages and disadvantages. The good thing is you really can't go wrong. Canon L glass holds it's value so good it's scary. It's almost like putting your money in a savings account. If you ever do have/want to sell the lens, you'll have no problem garnering 90% of what you paid. Plus you'll still have all the great images you took with the lens during the period which you owned it. The 24-70/2.8 is a big, heavy lens for it's focal length, and may even surprise you it's so massive. The 24-105/4 is a bit smaller, and lighter (1/2lb I believe), which will make a difference if you plan to carry your camera around a bit.

So, my recommendation is a 5D/24-105 if you want to stretch out your budget a bit. If you want to stick to right around the $2k you said, go with the 40D. Don't even add more lenses right now. Get this gear, and see where you think you need more versatility. You may have no need for a fast prime, you might be better served by a longer zoom, 70-200??? The 5D (or 40D) plus 24-105 will get your feet wet, be super versatile, and you can add from there later. Then we'll talk tripods, flashes, etc...

That's my opinion.

If you get a 5D and a 24-105, I will definitely be jealous, for what it's worth.

rb

Damn, now I'm looking for a 5d body. You guys suck.

Oof. Water gets deep quick around here.




It's a GREAT time to pick up an original 5D!! If I weren't doing something meaningless with the money already, like remodeling a bathroom, I'd be all over one.

Outside looking in sucks!

(Get it, BeeDub!).

rb

Well see how the winter drilling season pans out. I still need a 400mm L lens too.

If that's the 100-400, I love mine. Puts out images that make even me look good every once in a while.

Before I spring for a prime 400L though, I'm buying a quad!

rb

Well I've got it narrowed down a good bit. The recommendations here helped lean me in Canon's direction but today I got a no-brainer reason to choose one of the Canon's. One of my good buddies shoots a Canon and has several lenses including several L's that I'm basically free to use whenever I wish too - Wow.
I'm going to make a list of the Lenses he has and I'll buy complimentary ones to his collection so we can share back and forth.

I looked at a used 5d today. It had a battery grip included, seemed in decent shape with some wear around the flash shoe on top and a little on the bottom of the battery grip. It comes with a 30 day warranty for $1599. I compared it side by side with a 50d. I asked the Salesperson (professional camera store so maybe a little knowledgeable) her opinion on New 50d vs Used 5d and she said she would lean towards new since there's no way exactly to tell how good the internal mechanicals were on the used camera.
How frequently to Camera's have mechanical problems? Do you think that there would be much of a worry buying a used Camera. If something did break how much does a typical repair cost and how long might it take? Does $1599 with a Battery grip sound within reason? Thanks for all the input...................DJ

Well, I guess that would be difficult to address. Was there mention of how many actuations were on the shutter? This is typically the only "wearing" part of the camera body. They are good to 200,000 - 300,000 clicks. Even then, a shutter replacement last time I had it done was around $200.

This leads to really one of the MAIN reasons most professionals, and serious amateurs choose Canon. That's customer service and repairs. Canon is absolutely fantastic in this regard, and it's very well documented. Any repair, warranty or otherwise, are performed usually with lightning speed. I had to send in my 1DmkIII last year for the sub-mirror adjustment. It was kind of a "recall", as I thought the camera was perfect before. I sent it anyway, because they extended the 1yr warranty from the date of the repair, so that made it worth it. It seemed exactly the same after return, perfect. They emailed me a UPS prepaid OVERNIGHT shipping slip, I sent it out on a Monday, and received it back and "repaired" by Thursday that same week. I couldn't believe it. When I got the shutter replaced on a previous camera, I was without the camera 9 total days, including the weekend.

So, in other words, Canon is VERY good in this regard. You never have to feel like you're the only darn person in the country that owns that camera, like I used to feel with Nikon. I know they (Nikon) are making strides to provide better customer service, but they are no where near there yet. At least this is what I'm told from my 2 Nikon buddy's who borrow my Canon Telephoto's and 1D3's whenever they go to Yellowstone NP

It's your call. The 50D will be a great camera too, no doubt about it. Plus, and this I can EASILY understand, there's just something about opening some gear BRAND NEW, and you're the only owner. That feeling will (obviously) not be there buying used. Either will be as much camera as you can handle, though different. Both will have advantages and disadvantages, but there's no way you could go wrong with either.

The only feature the 50D has that's not on the 5D which I think is quite beneficial is the Micro Adjust AF feature. This is on my Pro cameras, and I love it with the fast glass that I live for. Super handy. The new LCD is AMAZING!!!, but that doesn't translate to image quality of course.

Let us know how you proceed.

ROb

dj there is a way of knowing how many clicks the camera has had. A pro dealer should probably know how to do this and can tell you the # of uses. I think a 5D is rated about 150000 clicks. And unless a proshooter has owned the camera no one else really uses them that much. Wear on top of a 5D near the flash attachment shoe is very common. I had it almost the first day on my 5D.

The 5D should be coming down in price very rapidly now, since the new model is about to hit the shelves.

Remember, any camera system revolves around the lenses, and the Canon L series are among the best. Further, as technology gets cheaper, I think less than FF cameras will become obsolete for serious photography.

That seems a bit steep. You may be paying a bit much for a 30 day warranty. $1300 is about the norm right now but Canon body prices are dropping fast. Here's a link to a new one on FM and I'd suggest searching the buy-sell forum there. This one is NIB for $1125. No grip. A used grip should run about $100.
IMO the the 50D is the wrong choice to start. Right now for some one getting started it's almost a no brainer for a 40D at under $900 new unless you are dying to go full frame. The 5DMKII should be out in December. Around $2700.
FWIW there are still NIB 5D's available and camera prices are plummeting with the poor economy. If you want a dealer new 5D you might want to hang on a month. If you can find a NIB body they should be under 2k. It's a bit unknown because if the 5DMKII gets a reception like the new 50D then the 5D may hold value longer.


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/707748


Not that I'm a big B+H fan but here's a new one in kit form. IIR that's a $900 lens so the 5D is basicly $1600 new.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/484816-REG/Canon_0296B113_EOS_5D_Digital_Camera.html#includes

Wow that 5d with the 24-105 is a good deal. I went and checked out the lenses that my buddy has that I pretty much have free access to to use whenever I like:

EFs 17-85
EF 100 f/2.8 USM
EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 24-105 f/4L Is USM
EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS

Whichever body I start with I'll probably just start out the the 24-105 f/4L and go from there. The first lens I buy will likely be a lower range zoom to complement what we already have and can trade back and forth.
It's sure nice to have good freinds!.............................DJ

Ya! Call Doug!

rb

Doug was out of 5d's and the 5dmkII's aren't in yet................DJ

The old 5D is a heckuva buy these days, and getting better.

Just so you know, I had a 24-105 that I liked so much that when I lost it in Vegas last year (don't ask), I bought another. I considered the 24-70 F2.8 for a while, but I just couldn't get over how much I liked that 24-105 as my all-around lens. It's what sits on the camera 90% of the time.

My experience is very limited, especially compared to some of the guys on this thread, but I gotta say that a lens that throws a rookie more than an occasional bone image-wise is not a bad thing. I like the IS a LOT!

DJ,
I have the 40D and several Canon lenses, A few months ago I
Bought a EF70-200mmUSM L IS from Adordama (Doug didn't have it)
And it is simply that best lens I have ever used.
$969.95 if my memory serves me right.
I have Nikons also but I think the lens selection from Canon
will keep me running Canon stuff from now on.
I talked to a professional Photographer and he said that anything besides a Canon or Nikon would be a waste of money.
Charlie

I ended up going with a Canon Eos 50d. I got a deal on it that made it not cost much more than a 40 would have. I figured that since it has basically the same interface as the 5d MK II I would have a good upgrade path when they come out without having to relearn anything.
At the moment I have the 24-105l on the body and have a EF 100 macro and a 100-400L to experiment with thanks to my good buddy.

My next decision will be on which lens to add to the range that we have available to us. Maybe a 100-200 f2.8l to have a faster zoom but more likely a wider angle zoom to better cover the low end. Eventually I'll get a 24-105l of my own.

Thanks for all the help, now I've got a lot of learning to do!........................DJ

I'd say you'd likely next go for a 17-40/4L or 16-35/2.8LII.

Let us know how the progress goes, and if you have any questions along the way.

Just joined the campfire, but this thread jumped right out at me. To the OP, if you're seriously considering dropping the kind of coin that has been discussed, you need to take a real good look at lensrentals.com. Roger has most of what has been mentioned here available to rent... Trust me when I say that a weeks rental at almost any price is a bargain if you learn enough from it to NOT buy the wrong lens.

Good point about finding out that you do not want to buy a particular lens before you lay down the cash!

However, do NOT try the Canon 300 f2.8L IS, or the Canon 800mm f5.6L IS lenses. A friend has both and lets me borrow them -- and after using them and seeing the image quality, I am thinking about selling a limb to buy them (especially the 300mm!) Wish I had never used either (sort of!)

From the website:

Roger�s Take: Do you know the difference between a fairy tale and a Southern fairy tale? Well, a fairy tale starts �once upon a time�. A Southern fairy tale starts �Y�all aint gonna believe this S#@t�. The 300mm f/2.8L IS is the Southern fairy tale of camera lenses.

In addition to his own evaluations, I see that Roger also provides links to comments by users (e.g. on the Canon 300 f2.8L : http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=38&sort=7&cat=2&page=2

I wish I was in the US so that I could use the company!

Seriously though, many will find that a lens over 400mm is not what they want after all... so renting first is indeed a great idea.

John