Purchased MY First Dslr

[Captured]

I just bought the Canon 5D 12.8 megapixel camera body on Ebay!! Also, it was my first Ebay purchase!!
free shipping (standard). now, I have to wait and see when the seller ships the camera. I can't wait!! I plan to rent a couple lens before I make a purchase. Any recommendations for the 5D? I have about $ 1700 us budget for lens/ I need a tripod. My goal is to master the camera and the lens before I upgrade to the 5D markii- hopefully by then the price of the camera body will have lowered significantly :-)
I Love bokeh, portraits-outdoor natural light, nature, capturing story telling images, children at play.
I want to get creative- I like the soft, dreamy look.. and even flare! Has anyone played around with a lensbaby? Would love to try newborn photography as well. I know it's going to take time (lots of money) to build up an aresenal, but I'm interested in what the members find as a most versatile lens/ the WOW lens
I've looked at 50mm's, 85's and 135mm's...

[Captured]

Okay- I get it- I said I'd rent some lenses.. I'll post pictures when I can. Looking forward to the journey ahead!

[jeeperman]

Congrats on the purchase! The wait is the worst!! Look forward to seeing some images.

[Captured]

Thank you! So, for some reason there is a hold- We'rethinking it's because it's my First Paypal transaction, and they have to verify/review us.... UGH!! I'm trying to be patient


***Just got notification that "All ready, going out tomorrow" from the seller.
Yay!!!
Will keep "you" posted

[ShawnD]

Since this is your first dslr I would advise you to start of with a 24-70mm 2.8L. I have an 85mm and the 135mm but my 24-70mm gets more use.

[MilT0s]

Although the 24-70 is a better lens I would recommend the 24-105 IS since it is cheaper and longer (105 vs 70) so more versatile.

In any case once you have such a budget don't invest on cheap lens if you plan to use you new equipment seriously, even as a hobby. I mean that in my opinion two good lens (eg L series or primes) are better than three low budget lens.

[Captured]

Thank you for your input! I have to admit, I'm pretty clueless about the lenses. I chose the 5D because it was a full frame camera that I was able to buy at a decent price knowing that I will have to invest in quality lenses! (I decided I didn't want a cropped sensor bc I honestly didnt want to have to worry about if/how it will work on any future camera (the 5D markii)didn't want to do the math/have to relearn/ get used to the lens on a full frame.) I had the money for a new Markii, but then I'd have not much left over to spend on a decent lens or a tripod or anything else for a very long time! Kept having to tell myself it's not all about the camera! I want to have skill and talent. If I got the Markii now, people would only assume my photographs are great because of the camera itself-(it's awesome!) I didn't want that. I'm looking forward to the journey ahead! ..And now to look up those lenses you suggested!!

[blakemcguire]

+1 on the 24-70 2.8L. If you spent that kind of money on the body, you're really shafting yourself if you settle for less on your glass. The 24-105 is okay, but I'd prefer the extra optical quality and the extra stop.

[rpcrowe]

I would recommend purchasing the very best mid-range zoom lens that you can afford (and of course, which is compatible with your full frame camera).

The rationale behind this philosophy is that you will most likely use the mid-range zoom for the greater share of your shooting so that is where you should put the majority of your investment.

If I shot full frame, I would select the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens as my mid range zoom. It has a zoom range which would fill most of my (I can only talk about my needs, not yours) needs. IMO 24mm is plenty wide enough for the vast majority of my shooting and 105mm can be quite good for portrait work.

You can get a Canon refurbished 24-105mm f/4L IS lens from Adorama for $859.00 USD with free shipping and no sales tax if you don't live in New York State. Adorama provides a one-year warranty on this lens.

[Carl in Louisiana]

Congrats on the new camera! I know how you feel about the wait. Here is a site that sells used lenses and it was on this forum before for the standards they used on lenses they rented and sold as used.
http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon

[TheEvilDonut]

I am a Nikon user and thus have no working knowledge of the Canon lens universe but I can say this. I've got my 35mm f/1.8 lens a week ago and it is teaching me bucketloads of techniques the likes of which I never would have expected.

[Scott Stephen]

Very smart strategy, buying high-quality used gear that is about 1.5 generations behind the bleeding edge of what's newest and most expensive. Don't buy any junk lenses (unless you go WAY cheap and get a $100.00 "nifty 50" 50mm f/1.8, where you really can't go wrong.)
IMHO, the 24-70 and the 24-105 are both good choices. I think I might go for the 24-70 to get the extra stop of light at f/2.8 vs. f/4.0. This will be your walk-around lens, and between 24 and 70, you will be wanting to use it inside at night. I think you would feel hindered to not have your general-purpose lens be any brighter than f/4.0.

You can always add a longer lens as your 2nd lens, and then you can go "quality but economy" on the aperature for that one. You could get an EXCELENT Non-IS 70-200 f/4.0 for your longer shots. At 200mm, you'd probably be shooting outside in the daytime when there is plenty of light, since you didn't list "indoor basketball games" as one of your hobbies. Plus then you'd have a "white" lens for coolness points.

At new prices a 24-70f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/4.0 (non-IS) together would be as little as $2100. Used, like you got your camera, you should be able to get both lenses for your $1,700.00 budget. That gives you 2 good tools that are better than one that attempts to be everything to everybody but makes sacrifices (aperature) to do it. You will also have a lot more range covered (24-200 combined rather than just 24-105).

[AB26]

Hi Krisztina,
I did almost the same thing a week ago. Bought a Nikon D200, this was realeased back in Nov 2005. Must say I am not sorry.
Got a 18-135 F3.5-5.6 lens and a 35mm F1.8 with it. The zoom is on the camera all the time. Very versitile. It does have limitations like vinetting at 18 and 135mm with large aperture.
I would suggest you read all you can find on reviews of the lens you intend to buy. I did it and knew what to expect with the 18-135.
To me personally the 18-135 is what I need most of the time. I would like to add a 70-300, only for shots of animals an birds.

Lenses is a very personal choice and is determined by your spesific need and style.
If you can afford it buy the best glass possible for your camera. Don't go cheap for the sake of getting more for your dollar.
Determine your need and go for the best.

Regards,
Andre

[inkista]

I am a Nikon user and thus have no working knowledge of the Canon lens universe but I can say this. I've got my 35mm f/1.8 lens a week ago and it is teaching me bucketloads of techniques the likes of which I never would have expected.

Um. The 35/1.8 is a DX lens. The 5D is, in Nikon parlance, an FX camera. And, on the Canon side of the fence, EF-S (DX) lenses cannot be mounted onto a 5D: there's this safety "bumper" on the back to prevent it, so you can't just do in-body cropping like you can with a D800. And, aside from all that, Canon doesn't make an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 USM (I wish the hell they would). And the old EF 35mm f/2 is a) old and showing the age of its optical design, and b) not USM (AF-S in Nikonspeak).

+1 on considering the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. The EF 24-70/2.8 is also a good idea. Which one is more versatile depends a lot on whether your definition of versatility relies on focal length/framing, or max. aperture/lighting. But if both of these lenses are way out of your budget, and you just want cheapie kit lenses to get you started, you could also try and hunt up an EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Also, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, or the newly announced EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens. However, most of us have a deep-seated prejudice that if you can afford a full-frame body, you can damn well afford Ls to go with it, because new full-frames tend to be in the $2500-$3500 price range.

I have a 5DMkII and a 24-105L. The 24-105 is almost a perfect travel companion: smaller and lighter than the 24-70, but limited to f/4 throughout the range, and optically not quite on the same level, because of having to cover the larger zoom range. It's still great for both landscape and portrait shots, and a better fit as a walkaround. The 24-70 is liable to be a better fit as a portrait/event lens because of the lower-light capability f/2.8 gives it.