Dave Craig wrote:
...I found a full frame (better photos) Cannon 5D mark ll on eBay for under a grand with only 6k clicks... and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens on Amazon for just over a grand (stick with the L lens they are rain and dust proof and built for pro abuse) So for about 2 grand used I bought what would of cost about 6 grand plus new and I can shoot pretty much anything with my setup! In my opinion what I have is the best that cannon ever produced as a pair and I got it on the cheap...Be warned though the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens is huge and heavy so once you work up some mussels from lugging it around you will really appreciate days of shooting with say a tiny 24 lens, but don’t be surprised if you keep going back to your Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM it’s an addicting lens that you may have to seek therapy to get away from in the future.
...I found a full frame (better photos) Cannon 5D ... (
show quote)
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.