amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Sorry, but no, that's not a good recommendation for a beginner today.

I'm not knocking the 5D Mark II or the lens you recommend (in fact I have both myself). But a full frame camera is larger, heavier and more expensive... plus limits the user to full frame-capable lenses, which also are necessarily bigger, heavier and generally more expensive. So instead of being able to choose from approx. 87 EF-S and lenses that Canon offers, a full frame camera user would be limited to about 65 EF lenses (though that's still greater selection than some other manufacturers offer).

In addition, the current crop of APS-C cameras (T6i/T6s, 80D and 7DII) all offer almost as much or even greater resolution (20MP or 24MP versus the 5DII's 21MP). They're also able to produce usable quality images at as high or higher ISO than older full frame cameras (I use my 5DII up to ISO 12800... but have been able to make usable images as high as ISO 16000 with my 7DIIs). Plus, all these APS-C models have faster and more versatile autofocus systems: 19-point in T6i/T6s, 45-point in 80D, 65-point in 7DII... versus the 9-point system on 5DII (which was essentially unchanged from the original 5D... so actually dates to about 2004). All those AF points in all those APS-C cameras are the better "dual axis" type that's best for speed and tracking. The 5DII only has one dual axis AF point, at the center. The rest of the ones visible in the viewfinder are slower single-axis type. (5DII actually has 6 more "hidden Assist" AF points that can be enabled and are clustered close around the center point, but only work in AI Servo focus mode. two of those are dual-axis type.) The 80D and 7DII also have "f8 capable" AF points (27 in the 80D, only one in the 7DII). Those allow the use of teleconverters on more lenses. 5DII and the T6i/T6s all have "f5.6 limited" autofocus systems that limit use of any TC to only the fastest (i.e., biggest, heaviest, most expensive) lenses.

Again, I am not knocking the 5DII... it's still a great camera. I've been using mine for 6 or 7 years now and am only now starting to consider a 5D Mark IV to replace it (5DIII got a greatly improved AF system, but that wasn't enough to make me need one).

But someone buying their first DSLR today might do better and most users are best served buying one of the mentioned or other APS-C models, if for no other reason than to be able to choose some of the more affordable, smaller and lighter "crop only" EF-S lenses to use with it.

For example, In order to have approx. the same range offered by an EF-S 18-135mm IS USM that costs $600, weight 515 grams, and uses 67mm filters, for a full frame camera one would have to get a much bigger EF 28-300mm "L" IS USM (actually a little longer focal length, but a 28-215mm isn't available), costing $2450, weighing 1660 grams and using 77mm filters. Alternatively, for full frame one could instead get an EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM and EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM, which respectively cost $900 and $1200, weigh 600 grams and 760 grams, and use 77mm and 67mm filters. Those are among the most affordable full frame lens options that offer similar performance and features to the EF-S 18-135mm on an APS-C camera.

In fact, most DSLR users really don't need full frame at all. Unless making really large prints ... bigger than, say, 13x19" or 16x24"... or are cropping an equal amount frequently... they're unlikely to see much difference in their finished images. Some 95% of DSLRs sold now are "crop sensor", only 5% are "full frame".

And "L" lenses may or may not be the best choice. There are a lot of very good, high performance lenses that aren't L-series. To qualify as L-series Canon requires lenses to have... 1. Leading edge design, materials and manufacture (somewhat subjective)... 2. Exotic lens elements such as aspherical, ED or UD or fluorite (which some great lenses just don't need... or, which some lenses do use but don't qualify for other reasons)... 3. Compatibility with all EOS cameras past, present and future (and since they cannot be used on all cameras, this instantly excludes all EF-S lenses from "L" status, no matter how good they are).

For example, the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM and EF-S 15-85mm IS USM lenses both use aspherical and UD elements, and many users consider their image quality equal to or maybe even better than some L-series. They are well built and reasonably durable, too, though perhaps not quite as well sealed for weather and dust resistance as some L's. However, because they are EF-S lenses abd only usable on crop sensor EOS cameras... they are not and will not ever be "L" series. Another example is the EF 100mm f2.8 USM macro lens... which easily matches image quality of most L-series and is even identical build quality as the EF 180mm f3.5L macro lenses (even uses the same "Tripod Mounting Ring B")... but merely because it doesn't need any exotic glass to do its job exceptionally well, the 100/2.8 USM doesn't get anointed with a red stripe and L-status. The TS-E 45mm and 90mm Tilt-Shift lenses also aren't L-series because they lack any exotic glass, although they are identical build and in some cases have better image quality as other TS-E lenses that are L-series.

So, yeah, most L-series are pretty darned fine lenses and may be a good choice. But there's no reason to overlook a lot of very good or even excellent "non-L" lenses, that might even be better for many users! When I shop for a lens I look for one that will do what I need it to do and has the features I want.... probably the very last thing I am concerned is whether or not it's an L-series. As a result, probably about half the lenses in my Canon kit are L-series... while the other half are not.

Jerry Coupe Loc: Kent, WA

Check out Costco and Best Buy if you don't have camera specific store in your area. They frequently have the Canon 80D or Nikon 90D with two lens packages (similar to the lens you mentioned) for a good price.

lpeck

Thank you.

gessman Loc: Colorado

The Nano USM 18-135 you discuss in your first post on this thread somehow slipped by me while I've been off dabbling with the Sony a60?? line, most recently the a6500 I just got last month. I was typing my response to the OP as you were doing the same and when I exited and read your post, realizing that a new lens had crept out on me I withdrew my comment immediately, as you can now see by looking. You happened to have read my comment after you finished your original response just ahead of my ability to retract, which I was doing as you were typing your last post above - check the time stamp. I need to read up on the lens to which you refer. Thanks for bring it up. If I understood you right, just toward the end of your final comment above, you said the new lens didn't track as well with video. That makes me wonder how important the "faster response" in stills is going to be to a beginner as opposed to the tracking capabilities of the STM, especially for sports and wildlife since the max of 135mm doesn't make it a particularly good lens for those two activities.

Still, one of my main points for the OP was, in the beginning, to use "auto" and focus attention on composition before worrying about all the other aspects of photography and the camera features. I don't think that bit of advice goes away for a few more nano-seconds of faster or better lens action for sports and wildlife neither of which are real suitable for that focal range except indoors perhaps. As a beginner I don't much think the OP will see the finer points you mention between the STM and the Nano USM - down the road maybe, but not at first. I'd think that by the time the OP would be capable of analyzing the added benefits of the Nano USM over the STM, if the OP ever achieves that level of expertise, it may be that other lens that will cover that range may be on tap anyway.

EDIT: I checked out some reviews and it looks like, as you said, the Nano USM is the lens to have.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Do you have any evidence to support that "alternative fact"? The available evidence from reliable sources does not support your assertion. Perhaps you can provide pictures taken on an APS-C camera with either the Canon EF-S 10-18 or EF-S 10- 22 that clearly demonstrate the effect you think occurs.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

No, you may not.

There is no reason why an ultra wide lens designed for an APS-C camera mounted on an APS-C camera cannot deliver equivalent quality results to an ultra -wide designed for a full frame on a full frame camera so long as the field of view is equivalent. The OP is looking at purchasing an APS-C camera. MAS 24's comment was irrelevant and not based upon valid or supportable information other than the equivalent field of view numbers which do not apply. I stick to "complete BS" as a description for MAS 24's comment.

A wide angle lens designed for a full frame camera doesn't deliver the effective field of view desired on an APS-C camera and also costs more money. There is no advantage to a full frame when using a wide angle lens, just the usual larger sensor advantages which need to be matched to a suitably designed lens. The entire comment may have confused the issue and was not helpful.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Be careful with "similar" lenses. They can make a world of differences. For example avoid the EF 75 -300 lenses, they are some of Canon's worst. The EF 70 -300, either the older or better the newer version are far superior. Lowest price may not be the objective in this instance.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Granted, corner sharpness is an issue for almost all lenses, and that and other types of distortion can be more of a problem for ultra wides, but I don't think those issues are limited to crop frame cameras. I'd be interested in the source for that information.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

'S' verses "full frame" lens for non full frame camera leaves only one thought in my mind, if you buy full frame lenses and want to go eventually in to a full frame camera you don't have to replace lenses. Stay with a non full frame camera is fine and if you shoot birds, action I see no reason for full frame. I guess what I am trying to say enjoy your self but think ahead. Cameras come and go but lenses are for ever.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

The point is only valid if one may go to full frame at some in-determinant point in the future. The additional cost of full frame lenses at shorter focal lengths is substantial, and a good lens such as the EF-S 10-22 maintains a good resale price.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I don't know Alan. I take all your points, which are valid (and as usual, I love and appreciate your comprehensive response), but let me offer an alternate scenario (and not just because I have these items). The 80D with 18-135 EFS from B&H is $1499. It comes with an excellent warranty and is a good fit for a beginner or more experienced amateur. But, how about as an alternative, the OP considers a gently used 5D MKIII and a 24-105L IS? You can find spotless 5D3 bodies for $1500 and 24-105Ls all day for $500-550, so ~$2,000 total - $500 more. I will grant it's used, and depending on where you buy it, you may or may not get a warranty (but you could buy one from square trade or someone similar), but as you know there are multiple technical and real advantages which I could enumerate, but we both know what they are. From my perspective, that's a valid alternative, one which I'd choose in a minute, but we all have different priorities. Just saying it's worth consideration.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

All valid points, but it probably depends on the OP's budget, possibly desires for weight and bulk which we do not yet know. At the end of the day a full frame system costs a chunk more whichever way you look at it. From what we know so far, I would still say the original configuration selected by the OP would be hard to beat.

lpeck

I'd like to start by thanking all who have provided input. The information has been very helpful. I generally don't buy used for fear of getting stuck with others problems. That said, I think I will go with the masses and purchase the 80D which I can "grow" into. I am still a bit confused about the lense selection. Please tell me more about the two 18-135 IS Canon options. As originally stated I have 2 grandchildren on the way and I'm expecting I will be taking a number of pictures and video (another reason I think the 80D makes sense.

Your continued support will be much appreciated. Once I have the camera and finalize lens selections, I'm sure I will have a lot more questions,

Thanks again,

Larry

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I think Alan (amfoto1) has covered the details on the lenses. Either of the Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM or USM lenses will do the job. I have the STM and it is a good lens, but the newer USM version is even better. The first gen 18 -135 isn't bad, but the two newer ones are definitely an improvement over the first gen. If I were you I would get the USM version, it will be fine for video. If you do want to do video, getting a video mic is a very good idea, something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Rode-VideoMic-Directional-Condenser-Microphone/dp/B00CAE8PM4

Then of course comes a tripod for video, another discussion.

For now, although I fully approve of the lenses you originally suggested, you may want to also consider a decent flash as well, so perhaps starting with the 80D and EF-S 18-135 IS USM and keeping some funds in reserve until you work out what you want next would be a good idea. You will probably need an extra battery or two, possibly a battery grip. Video drains batteries pretty fast. Accessories drain the bank account!

Good luck.

lpeck

Thank you for all of your help. How do you differentiate between the new and old lenses. What is it about the USM that you prefer over the STM?