I am looking to buy my first DSLR and an evening spent researching the web has put the Nikon D3200 at the top of the shortlist, with plenty of sites recommending it as the perfect starter camera. It can be had as a kit with a 18-55mm VR lens, plus bag, for around £260 which seems very good value and is spot on for my budget (I thought even an entry level camera would be much more). I just wondered if anyone owns or has owned one and could give me some user feedback on it?
Buying my first DSLR – Any Nikon D3100/3200 Users?
- Thread starter wilbo
- Start date
Hi there,
I have a D5100 which is a bit older and maybe worth a look?
It has a fold out LCD screen which has proved invaluable in some situations. It has less megapixels which is fairly irrelevant unless you plan on printing off supersize images, but has a great sensor and produces great beginner images. A friend has just bought the D3200 and it is also excellent value for money. Try this site http://www.valuebasket.com/en_GB//mainproduct/view/10810-AA-BK
£219.99 for the D3200 with free delivery. This is where my friend got his from with no problems!
I have a D5100 which is a bit older and maybe worth a look?
It has a fold out LCD screen which has proved invaluable in some situations. It has less megapixels which is fairly irrelevant unless you plan on printing off supersize images, but has a great sensor and produces great beginner images. A friend has just bought the D3200 and it is also excellent value for money. Try this site http://www.valuebasket.com/en_GB//mainproduct/view/10810-AA-BK
£219.99 for the D3200 with free delivery. This is where my friend got his from with no problems!
Had some stunning pics with my D3200. Bought it when my daughter got married and was worth every penny.
Certainly a good buy at £219 and would recommend not getting the kit lens if you can.
I bought the 18-105mm and the 35mm Nikon DX lenses and both have given great results. Mainly leave the 18-105 on and very rarely use the 35mm.
Certainly a good buy at £219 and would recommend not getting the kit lens if you can.
I bought the 18-105mm and the 35mm Nikon DX lenses and both have given great results. Mainly leave the 18-105 on and very rarely use the 35mm.
If you weren't looking for your first DSLR and had a few lenses I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of the new crop of DSLRs.
But...
I would seriously look at the mirrorless market something like the Sony A6000, small lightweight and does everything and much much more. DSLRs are becoming more of a niche market now and if I wanted a camera to walk around and travel that would be what id buy
More budget options A5100.
But...
I would seriously look at the mirrorless market something like the Sony A6000, small lightweight and does everything and much much more. DSLRs are becoming more of a niche market now and if I wanted a camera to walk around and travel that would be what id buy
More budget options A5100.
Just been down this road. My budget was very similar. I was fully intending to get a DSLR, when I started out and the Nikon was very high on my list. After three weeks of research I narrowed it down to two cameras, neither of which are DSLRs :wink: :-
Olympus PEN Lite E-PL5 Review
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/camerareview/olympus-pen-lite-e-pl5-review/
and the :-
Nikon Coolpix P610
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_coolpix_p610_review
After going to a store and testing both cameras and despite having a good set of lenses from my old OM cameras, I bought the Nikon Coolpix.
It may only have a small sensor but it is clearly a good one and enables the supper Zoom focal lengths that are important in the sort of shots I typically take. Ie surfing and outdoor sports,. All of which benefit more from the 1400mm zoom than they lose from the smaller sensor.
Only had it Three days, but so far it's easily the best camera I have owned. Things have moved on so far with digital cameras in the four years since I last bought one. I'm sure what ever you buy you will be blown away by what they can do now.
Olympus PEN Lite E-PL5 Review
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/camerareview/olympus-pen-lite-e-pl5-review/
and the :-
Nikon Coolpix P610
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_coolpix_p610_review
After going to a store and testing both cameras and despite having a good set of lenses from my old OM cameras, I bought the Nikon Coolpix.
It may only have a small sensor but it is clearly a good one and enables the supper Zoom focal lengths that are important in the sort of shots I typically take. Ie surfing and outdoor sports,. All of which benefit more from the 1400mm zoom than they lose from the smaller sensor.
Only had it Three days, but so far it's easily the best camera I have owned. Things have moved on so far with digital cameras in the four years since I last bought one. I'm sure what ever you buy you will be blown away by what they can do now.
What Tom said. Certainly will be the route I go when mine needs replacing as they're just too big to carry around all day & offer little extra vs the new generations.
I have a Nikon D80 with a 50mm prime & an 18-200mm 'catch all' lens. Very old by modern standards, but does what it needs to very well. If you wanted to borrow it and have a play let me know. Not sure from your post if you have an SLR and are moving on from, or it is your first SLR type camera.
I have a Nikon D80 with a 50mm prime & an 18-200mm 'catch all' lens. Very old by modern standards, but does what it needs to very well. If you wanted to borrow it and have a play let me know. Not sure from your post if you have an SLR and are moving on from, or it is your first SLR type camera.
Hi, I bought a d3100 about 18 months ago. Used for both my sons weddings. Great for auto focus with great shutter speeds. I never take on holiday as too big for me. One of those items that for relatively small outlay I have been happy to use for "big" events and it doesn't owe me any money based on the pictures I have captured. If I wanted a camera to take around with me then mirror less is how I would go. Looked at Olympus pen lite may get next trip to the u.s. While the 18-55 lens is fantastic for any distance you would need either a 200 or 300 lens so consider a package that includes one of these as will work out cheaper in long run.
I have a D3100 that I bought off eBay just before Christmas. I paid £200.
I haven't mastered it by any means, but it works great when everything is on auto and I have got a few good results with some manual experiments.
I was a bit surprised at the comment that they're too big to travel around with - that's not my experience.
Hope you find what you decide upon.
I haven't mastered it by any means, but it works great when everything is on auto and I have got a few good results with some manual experiments.
I was a bit surprised at the comment that they're too big to travel around with - that's not my experience.
Hope you find what you decide upon.
AlpinaRoadsterS
Member
@ wilbo
I have the Nikon 5200 and the Nikon 5300.
For me it was important, that the DSLR has LIVEVIEW. The 3200 has this feature.
I use my apple & android devices as display for the camera - with the qdslrdashborad - app.
http://dslrdashboard.info/
I use Nikon since ariund 10 years and never had a problem.
I have the Nikon 5200 and the Nikon 5300.
For me it was important, that the DSLR has LIVEVIEW. The 3200 has this feature.
I use my apple & android devices as display for the camera - with the qdslrdashborad - app.
http://dslrdashboard.info/
I use Nikon since ariund 10 years and never had a problem.
Enjoy your journey with the D3100. You will be blown away with the quality of the D3100 if you have not used a DSLR before. I wonder how long before you hanker for a new lens?!
I’m more of a Canon Man, so can't really comment too much on Nikon.
I started off with a Canon EOS 500D with an 18-55 lens and a 55-250 lens, i recently sold it for £250 for an upgrade but it was an excellent starter camera. and I would recommend one.
I now have a Canon 5D Mkii and its a great bit of kit, just need to save up some pennies now for a few L series lenses i have my eye on.
Have a look at places like London Camera Exchange, Cex & eBay for used cameras, you will save money and you still get a warranty and stuff.
Good Luck and let us know how you get on
I started off with a Canon EOS 500D with an 18-55 lens and a 55-250 lens, i recently sold it for £250 for an upgrade but it was an excellent starter camera. and I would recommend one.
I now have a Canon 5D Mkii and its a great bit of kit, just need to save up some pennies now for a few L series lenses i have my eye on.
Have a look at places like London Camera Exchange, Cex & eBay for used cameras, you will save money and you still get a warranty and stuff.
Good Luck and let us know how you get on
Close to pressing the buy button on the Nikon d3300 which is available for £275 with the 18-55 kit lens from HDEW cameras. I know that I will likely need to purchase further lenses in the future but that kit price is only £45 more than the body on its own so seems to be worth getting it to start with. Has anyone ever purchased from HDEW? I am aware that it is likely grey import stock however I believe the stock is already in the UK and they offer a 3 year warranty which from what I have read, use the same repair centres as nikon/canon offer.
If you're not bothered about grey imports: http://www.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-d3100-kit-with-18/OTcxNA_A_A
I've never bought from DigitalRev personally, but know a couple of chaps who have & seemed pretty pleased.
That said, I'd certainly be looking at mirrorless/compact-system-cameras too though. The Fuji X series are sublime.
I've never bought from DigitalRev personally, but know a couple of chaps who have & seemed pretty pleased.
That said, I'd certainly be looking at mirrorless/compact-system-cameras too though. The Fuji X series are sublime.
I buy 90% of my gear from DREV, arrives within 3 days, free postage, 12 month worldwide guarantee. Only had one issue and they bent over backward to sort it. Spent £1600 on a lens which came with a shard of metal in the barrel, they sorted it asap.
Seriously before you buy a DSLR go try out the mirrorless sector, my choice would be the A6000 or a A5100. DSLRs are making less and less sense for 90% of photographers, most of the time better image quality in a package half the size and half the weight, the bodies also have more tech than any of the DSLRs allowing to do more, more easily. Put it this way the A6000 shoots at 12fps… the closest you'll get to that is a £5000 Canon 1DX, if you have quick kids, like photographing sports or anything to do with cars… can't really go wrong. The only problem is the lens choice is a lot smaller and probably on the slightly expensive side.
I stick to my DSLRs professionally simply because they are so reliable and I rely on them for income and they aren't quite at that level yet although the Sony A7RII is very close!! I'm also heavily invested in glass to the point if I sold the gear I could probably buy myself a nice 3.0l SI. For a camera to take with me everyday I grab my Sony Nex5 N which is the older version of the A5100.
The only "pro" the DSLRs have atm is if your in a specific niche like wildlife or motorsport the DSLRs will destroy all mirrorless cameras, or if your an event/wedding shooter needing low light capability the mirrorless systems have no F2.8 zooms and the phase detect auto focus doesn't do so well in low light. But in pretty much all other situations fast phase detect is amazing as it means there are no back or front focus issues with lenses like the plague of problems most users have with SLR lenses! Its a pain buying lenses between £1000-3000 and with the AF sensor having tolerance of -3 - +3 and the same with the camera body the lens could back focus or front focus miles out.
This means you have to autofocus adjust your camera and lenses to get the best results which is a complete pain. Back focus is when you focus on something but the focus falls backward so if you focus on someones eye and the eye is out of focus but the ear is in focus, front focus is the opposite if you focus on the eye and the nose is in focus. This is much more apparent with fast lenses so F4 or below mostly F1.2-F2.8 because on a full frame camera the depth of field is so slim.
Also if you need more than 300mm there is nothing in the mirrorless range without using adapters. Most of the sony mirrorless cameras are APSC which basically means if you put any lens on them you will get a 1.5x crop factor so stick a 200mm lens on it and it becomes 300mm.
Most people will say well Nikon and Canon are fantastic because of the lens selection. This is true but for "normal" shooters having a standard lens 24-70mm, telephoto 70-300mm, wide angle 16-35mm, 100mm macro and a fast prime like a 50mm. This is pretty much all the gear you could ever need all the rest become specialty lenses and even the above list is a push for a lot of people. These are all currently available in all the mirrorless systems.
If I were to start again I think I don't think I would drop my Canon gear but I would add the new sony stuff. Infact if sony could produce lenses which match the amazing Canon 24-70mm F2.8, 70-200mm F2.8 and a 16-35mm F2.8 and maybe add a super zoom like a 100-400mm I would seriously think about swapping. Only problem is F2.8 glass is heavy and the idea of mirrorless is that it keeps things small, with a heavy lens you need a hefty body to balance out the weight which is why I still like DSLRs. Unfortunately for fast F2.8 you need a lot of glass so the F2.8s aren't going to get smaller and lighter any time soon.
Mirrorless has another advantage too, I don't particularly like the electronic view finders but I haven't used the newest versions which apparently are very good. Anyway the electronic viewfinder shows you the exact result you will get when you take the pic, instead of in a DSLR with an optical view finder shows whats true to life, what your eye sees. You have to keep an eye on the meter at the bottom to ensure your exposure is correct. The electronic viewfinder is an LCD inside the viewfinder they are bigger and brighter and they overlay information, you can zoom in to ensure critical focus, zebra for focus so if you own old manual focus legacy lenses you can use them. Really great options, the opportunity is pretty much endless with them. The only problem is they are a little laggy and get quite noisy in low light.
Also with these cameras getting higher and higher in MP the more difficult it is to get sharp images. The higher the MP vibration is amplified so if you have a shutter going off it vibrates the sensor, then there is hand shake and the weight of the camera in wind etc etc. Mirrorless has no mirror so no vibration, the new mirrorless cameras also have inbuilt 6 axis sensor stabilisation as well as lens stabilisation which makes shooting high resolution sensors so much easier than say the 36mp D810 or the 50mp 5DSR because of its mirror you need to tie it down to a tripod and this really ruins the experience and makes them quite niche products unless you shoot at much higher shutter speeds to compensate. The sweet spot for DSLRs is around 23mp but I remember when I got my 5DMKIII is was a learning curve with the full frame sensor and the amount of MP having a similar issue as above but again the resolution has doubled so you have to be careful.
But if you want a cheap camera and aren't bothered about size, weight, the newest tech and want amazing pics with a good line up of lenses you can't go wrong with the entry level DSLRs. They are becoming such fantastic value for money, but are going the way of the dinosaur.
Seriously before you buy a DSLR go try out the mirrorless sector, my choice would be the A6000 or a A5100. DSLRs are making less and less sense for 90% of photographers, most of the time better image quality in a package half the size and half the weight, the bodies also have more tech than any of the DSLRs allowing to do more, more easily. Put it this way the A6000 shoots at 12fps… the closest you'll get to that is a £5000 Canon 1DX, if you have quick kids, like photographing sports or anything to do with cars… can't really go wrong. The only problem is the lens choice is a lot smaller and probably on the slightly expensive side.
I stick to my DSLRs professionally simply because they are so reliable and I rely on them for income and they aren't quite at that level yet although the Sony A7RII is very close!! I'm also heavily invested in glass to the point if I sold the gear I could probably buy myself a nice 3.0l SI. For a camera to take with me everyday I grab my Sony Nex5 N which is the older version of the A5100.
The only "pro" the DSLRs have atm is if your in a specific niche like wildlife or motorsport the DSLRs will destroy all mirrorless cameras, or if your an event/wedding shooter needing low light capability the mirrorless systems have no F2.8 zooms and the phase detect auto focus doesn't do so well in low light. But in pretty much all other situations fast phase detect is amazing as it means there are no back or front focus issues with lenses like the plague of problems most users have with SLR lenses! Its a pain buying lenses between £1000-3000 and with the AF sensor having tolerance of -3 - +3 and the same with the camera body the lens could back focus or front focus miles out.
This means you have to autofocus adjust your camera and lenses to get the best results which is a complete pain. Back focus is when you focus on something but the focus falls backward so if you focus on someones eye and the eye is out of focus but the ear is in focus, front focus is the opposite if you focus on the eye and the nose is in focus. This is much more apparent with fast lenses so F4 or below mostly F1.2-F2.8 because on a full frame camera the depth of field is so slim.
Also if you need more than 300mm there is nothing in the mirrorless range without using adapters. Most of the sony mirrorless cameras are APSC which basically means if you put any lens on them you will get a 1.5x crop factor so stick a 200mm lens on it and it becomes 300mm.
Most people will say well Nikon and Canon are fantastic because of the lens selection. This is true but for "normal" shooters having a standard lens 24-70mm, telephoto 70-300mm, wide angle 16-35mm, 100mm macro and a fast prime like a 50mm. This is pretty much all the gear you could ever need all the rest become specialty lenses and even the above list is a push for a lot of people. These are all currently available in all the mirrorless systems.
If I were to start again I think I don't think I would drop my Canon gear but I would add the new sony stuff. Infact if sony could produce lenses which match the amazing Canon 24-70mm F2.8, 70-200mm F2.8 and a 16-35mm F2.8 and maybe add a super zoom like a 100-400mm I would seriously think about swapping. Only problem is F2.8 glass is heavy and the idea of mirrorless is that it keeps things small, with a heavy lens you need a hefty body to balance out the weight which is why I still like DSLRs. Unfortunately for fast F2.8 you need a lot of glass so the F2.8s aren't going to get smaller and lighter any time soon.
Mirrorless has another advantage too, I don't particularly like the electronic view finders but I haven't used the newest versions which apparently are very good. Anyway the electronic viewfinder shows you the exact result you will get when you take the pic, instead of in a DSLR with an optical view finder shows whats true to life, what your eye sees. You have to keep an eye on the meter at the bottom to ensure your exposure is correct. The electronic viewfinder is an LCD inside the viewfinder they are bigger and brighter and they overlay information, you can zoom in to ensure critical focus, zebra for focus so if you own old manual focus legacy lenses you can use them. Really great options, the opportunity is pretty much endless with them. The only problem is they are a little laggy and get quite noisy in low light.
Also with these cameras getting higher and higher in MP the more difficult it is to get sharp images. The higher the MP vibration is amplified so if you have a shutter going off it vibrates the sensor, then there is hand shake and the weight of the camera in wind etc etc. Mirrorless has no mirror so no vibration, the new mirrorless cameras also have inbuilt 6 axis sensor stabilisation as well as lens stabilisation which makes shooting high resolution sensors so much easier than say the 36mp D810 or the 50mp 5DSR because of its mirror you need to tie it down to a tripod and this really ruins the experience and makes them quite niche products unless you shoot at much higher shutter speeds to compensate. The sweet spot for DSLRs is around 23mp but I remember when I got my 5DMKIII is was a learning curve with the full frame sensor and the amount of MP having a similar issue as above but again the resolution has doubled so you have to be careful.
But if you want a cheap camera and aren't bothered about size, weight, the newest tech and want amazing pics with a good line up of lenses you can't go wrong with the entry level DSLRs. They are becoming such fantastic value for money, but are going the way of the dinosaur.
Tom,
I have a Canon 70D and am on the verge of buying the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lenses. I go to quite a few airshows annual so want the 100-400 zoom for aircraft shots. The one thing that is a pain is the weight and size of the damn thing.
I have never considered the Sony A6000 as an alternative but for size alone it does appeal and with what I'm going to spend on the Canon lenses i could pick up the Sony. Which lens would you recommend for the Sony as an equivalent for the 100-440 zoom?
I have a Canon 70D and am on the verge of buying the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lenses. I go to quite a few airshows annual so want the 100-400 zoom for aircraft shots. The one thing that is a pain is the weight and size of the damn thing.
I have never considered the Sony A6000 as an alternative but for size alone it does appeal and with what I'm going to spend on the Canon lenses i could pick up the Sony. Which lens would you recommend for the Sony as an equivalent for the 100-440 zoom?
Having had a few SLRs over the years, Digital and not, i've moved over to an LX100 recently. DSLR is great if you're a pro - it's the tool for the trade, but even with a hefty budget and a lot of spare time, the size/weight and effort involved will most likely eventually get in your way of simply taking the photo. The age old saying is the best camera is the one you have with you and these days, some of the mirrorless and new gen compact stuff is just as good for 99% of photographers, and lighter, smaller, easier to use and most importantly - you're more likely to have it with you to actually take the picture.
Juiceloose said:
Well I was in your situation and nearly pulled the trigger on the 100-400mm MKII because its the best zoom lens in its category, bar the 200-400mm. Its weather sealed, amazing build quality and Image quality. At £1600 its a niche product, and for me on a full frame camera 400mm isn't enough. The alternative is the Tamron 150-600mm its around £750 and to 400mm is very good, gets a little softer at 500mm but very usable and again at 600mm but the fact its there you can't go wrong and for the price… Your 70D has a 1.6x APSC crop sensor, so when you put a full frame lens on the camera like the 400mm you would get 640mm, the tammy will give you 960mm but from what I have read it plays better on full frame than crop.
For me since going full frame crop just doesn't do it for me anymore theres something about the look of the images and the quality of the images on full frame. But FF is a lot more difficult to use than crop, crop is a lot more forgiving.
Im going away traveling again here is the link:
http://www.z4-forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=80487
I took my 70-300mm L across south america and north america, taking it to the amazon etc and it was just far too short on full frame and I ended up missing some pretty amazing things because I just didn't have enough reach, even with 100-400mm an extra 100mm won't make much difference so for wildlife in Africa I pulled the trigger on the 150-600mm Tammy yesterday as park cameras had a bank holiday sale with it for £750. It matches the 100-400mm to 400 and has an extra 200mm when needed. Only problem is its no where as well built and isn't weather sealed, which is a real pain as I my gear gets used very hard and I don't think its up to the task especially the dust and sand. In comparison my 70-300mm went through complete torrential rain of the amazon might as well have been submerged, the heat and dust of the atacama desert and the arctic storm temps of -30-40 in Chicago and Detroit in north america. It came home without even a slight bit of dust, incredibly well built and the 100-400mm is basically the same with an extra 100mm. At the price of the tammy if it only lasts the trip I won't loose too much sleep and should still be under warranty. The images are more important to me. I think its a really good option at the moment. You may not need 600mm for the air shows but its there… and air shows don't really put you in the same sort of extreme conditions except the UK rain.
But I agree with you it is heavy and the 150-600mm is heavier. Unfortunately in the mirrorless world there is nothing that covers it. The options would be the 18-200mm or the 55-200mm which won't offer anywhere near the quality of a 100-400mm, the 70-200mm F4 G lens will give similar quality, on the 1.5x crop A6000 would give you 300mm. With your 70D and 400mm you get 640mm so your getting just shy of half the range. It is also a similar size and weight to the canon 70-200mm F4 so this is where the advantage of mirrorless goes away. If you shoot fast subjects and need a telephoto lens then the DSLR camp is still where you need to be. The mirrorless cameras are too small to mount these big lenses on the lens mounts aren't as strong either so if you are putting a 1.5kg lens on a 400g body it will be hugely front heavy and getting a good grip on the body will be very hard and uncomfortable especially for a full day shooting an air show.
But like I said above if you want an overall camera which can shoot nearly everything mirrorless is a good place to head. But for these niche subjects like weddings, events, motorsport, wildlife or others like the airshow DSLRs are still king atm.
Also a little warning when buying grey market. I bought my Tammy from a UK distributor because they aren't renowned for being the best in terms of tolerances like I was saying above. With Canon lenses they are usually very very good in terms of autofocus adjust, the tammys tolerances are no where near as good, Ive seen lenses being up to + and -20 out which is a wild swing of AF performance which is unacceptable imo. So I want the option to be able to send it back and get another copy if needs be. Canon lenses are usually within -3 to +3 so that to me is acceptable. So I wanted to make sure I could send it back if I had issues, it might only be £750 which is cheap compared to the other gear I use but if its not right £750 is £750.
Buying from digital rev is great but if you do have a problem you will have to pay for it to be returned. The lens I bought with the shard of metal in the barrel I said I wanted a straight swap, it was going to cost me £250 to send it back to Hong Kong insured for the £1600 and they wouldn't pay for the return, it also needed to be examined so even then I wasn't guaranteed a replacement. In the end digital revs UK customer service sorted it to be sent through CPS (canon professional services) to be serviced and repaired and they paid for everything. I assume it had a bump in transport. It came back immaculate as with most items that are professionally serviced they have a much higher tolerance as each one is tested strictly to manufacturers tolerances. Came back amazing and the only lens I have that is 0 on the AF adjustment. But just a pre warning. Thats the only problem Ive ever had and spent thousands with them and saved thousands too.
Tom,
Thank you for such a comprehensive reply to my question which confirms what I thought about no real equivalent lens to the 100-400 for the Sony. Your information has confirmed my decision to buy the 100-400 and stick on the DSLR route.
Can I ask if you have ever used the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Wide Zoom and if so what did you think of it. It gets similar if not better reviews than the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM which £365 more.
Thank you for such a comprehensive reply to my question which confirms what I thought about no real equivalent lens to the 100-400 for the Sony. Your information has confirmed my decision to buy the 100-400 and stick on the DSLR route.
Can I ask if you have ever used the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Wide Zoom and if so what did you think of it. It gets similar if not better reviews than the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM which £365 more.
No problem at all. If you ever want any more info… I tend to bore most people to death with my camera info so feel free to PM me.
It depends what your after, are you after a wide angle zoom or a standard zoom? If its a wide angle your after it doesn't really do the job on a crop camera as its designed for a full frame field of view. You have to remember that all full frame lenses have to be multiplied by 1.6 on a crop camera, also the aperture as the larger depth of field is inherent to a smaller sensor. With long lenses this is always an advantage but its the wide end that is a struggle. On the depth of field side of things its what is called a full frame equivalent. F2.8 on a crop camera will look like F4 on a full frame camera. So F4 on a crop camera is more equivalent to F6.4, its complicated so bare with me. Wide angle lens also tend to give more depth of field because of their field of view so even at F2.8 its difficult to isolate a subject, which is great as they are usually used for landscapes etc.
For example this was shot at 16mm at F2.8 on full frame, it looks far away but the part in focus was at the minimum focal distance which is 28cm. This is the only way to isolate a subject with a wide angle lens.
Haweswater Resevoir, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr
Whereas this is a landscape taken at F2.8 with nearly all of it in focus front to back.
Moonlit Haweswater Reservoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr
The 17-40mm is an old lens. Its not very sharp and the corners are worse, has no IS but is cheap. These tend to work well on crop cameras as with the 1.6x crop factor it uses the very centre of the glass which is good its the outer which isn't, with the crop factor this part of the glass isn't used. The 16-35mm is the same story its slightly sharper but performance is the very similar the advantage is that its a 2.8 which is the reason I have one as it allows me to shoot in much lower light for weddings etc. But at the moment the best of the bunch is the 16-35mm F4 IS excellent lens one of the newer gen canon designs like the 100-400mm all of which are excellent.
On a crop camera as I said its pretty good as it converts to a 28-64mm equivalent which is great as a standard zoom but is a little tele on the wide end 24mm is better. Its F4 but it has no IS which I think is important with a standard zoom. For wide angle lenses on a crop cameras like your 70D I would keep to the EF-S versions of lenses as they actually give you a wide angle perspective.
The best you can get on the crop side for a standard zoom is the 17-55mm F2.8, this is the equivalent of 28-88mm F2.8 so as close to a 24-70mm. The other lens is the 10-22mm which is the equivalent to the 16-35mm on full frame.
The only problem with the EF-s lenses is they do feel a bit cheaper, lack of weather sealing but the IQ is very very good, they are usually referred to as mini L lenses. I have owned both and loved both, infact I kept the 17-55mm as I like it so much. when I moved to full frame I found the 17-55mm about the same sharpness and depth of field as the 24-105mm.
Obviously if you want to move to full frame in the future it makes sense to buy full frame lenses as you will have to sell them later on as they wot fit. But if you want a true wide angle and an image stabilised F2.8 zoom the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm are the only Canon options.
I shot this with my 17-55mm
BMW Z4M Coupe by Tom Scott, on Flickr
And this with the 10-22mm
BMW E46 M3, Alston, Hartside, Cumbria, CSL wheels by Tom Scott, on Flickr
Both of which I'm very happy with.
It depends what your after, are you after a wide angle zoom or a standard zoom? If its a wide angle your after it doesn't really do the job on a crop camera as its designed for a full frame field of view. You have to remember that all full frame lenses have to be multiplied by 1.6 on a crop camera, also the aperture as the larger depth of field is inherent to a smaller sensor. With long lenses this is always an advantage but its the wide end that is a struggle. On the depth of field side of things its what is called a full frame equivalent. F2.8 on a crop camera will look like F4 on a full frame camera. So F4 on a crop camera is more equivalent to F6.4, its complicated so bare with me. Wide angle lens also tend to give more depth of field because of their field of view so even at F2.8 its difficult to isolate a subject, which is great as they are usually used for landscapes etc.
For example this was shot at 16mm at F2.8 on full frame, it looks far away but the part in focus was at the minimum focal distance which is 28cm. This is the only way to isolate a subject with a wide angle lens.
Haweswater Resevoir, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on FlickrWhereas this is a landscape taken at F2.8 with nearly all of it in focus front to back.
Moonlit Haweswater Reservoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on FlickrThe 17-40mm is an old lens. Its not very sharp and the corners are worse, has no IS but is cheap. These tend to work well on crop cameras as with the 1.6x crop factor it uses the very centre of the glass which is good its the outer which isn't, with the crop factor this part of the glass isn't used. The 16-35mm is the same story its slightly sharper but performance is the very similar the advantage is that its a 2.8 which is the reason I have one as it allows me to shoot in much lower light for weddings etc. But at the moment the best of the bunch is the 16-35mm F4 IS excellent lens one of the newer gen canon designs like the 100-400mm all of which are excellent.
On a crop camera as I said its pretty good as it converts to a 28-64mm equivalent which is great as a standard zoom but is a little tele on the wide end 24mm is better. Its F4 but it has no IS which I think is important with a standard zoom. For wide angle lenses on a crop cameras like your 70D I would keep to the EF-S versions of lenses as they actually give you a wide angle perspective.
The best you can get on the crop side for a standard zoom is the 17-55mm F2.8, this is the equivalent of 28-88mm F2.8 so as close to a 24-70mm. The other lens is the 10-22mm which is the equivalent to the 16-35mm on full frame.
The only problem with the EF-s lenses is they do feel a bit cheaper, lack of weather sealing but the IQ is very very good, they are usually referred to as mini L lenses. I have owned both and loved both, infact I kept the 17-55mm as I like it so much. when I moved to full frame I found the 17-55mm about the same sharpness and depth of field as the 24-105mm.
Obviously if you want to move to full frame in the future it makes sense to buy full frame lenses as you will have to sell them later on as they wot fit. But if you want a true wide angle and an image stabilised F2.8 zoom the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm are the only Canon options.
I shot this with my 17-55mm
BMW Z4M Coupe by Tom Scott, on FlickrAnd this with the 10-22mm
BMW E46 M3, Alston, Hartside, Cumbria, CSL wheels by Tom Scott, on FlickrBoth of which I'm very happy with.
Tom what do you think of the Canon 70-200 F4 IS?
Im looking for a new lens for mine and not sure what to get
I currently have:
A Canon EF 28-135 (which i will replace long term)
A Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
I have bought a Canon EOS 5d MK2 recently after trading in my 500d with 18-55 & 55-250 lenses.
Ash
Im looking for a new lens for mine and not sure what to get
I currently have:
A Canon EF 28-135 (which i will replace long term)
A Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
I have bought a Canon EOS 5d MK2 recently after trading in my 500d with 18-55 & 55-250 lenses.
Ash