Having a love in photography is like on a path of self-destruction. Just when I had enough time to test out my 60D after a nice photowalk in Lucidity, my itch for 5D Mark II got a lot stronger. Most forums are saying the difference is not as much as your skill set (well,…of course, but I long for that clean crisp IQ that 5D offers). Finally found a good page:

http://www.jmphotocraft.com/5DII_v_7D/shore.htm

“Even at ISO 100, the difference is obvious if you view at 100% but unnoticble if you reduce the size said to 2000 pixels. but 5D color rendition is still better. IQ is not noise or sharpness alone but many other factors. You need to view a photo as a whole.”

For the lenses to go with the 5D, I decided on the pricier 16-35 f/2.8 since I prefer a wide aperture when I can get it, more freedom for candid shoot than the 17-40 f/4.
I was gonna stop there until I realized that I won’t have a zoom lens in the mid range for the 5D. I was already planning on keeping the 60d+17-55 combo. The IS on the 17-55 is a life saver and I really like the 2.8 aperture. The only problem with that with the “office” look that most comedy shoot are going for, I need a zoom lens that can provide a good range. I notice that I don’t like the look of 17-24 on a cropped censor for shooting video, especially inside because of the distortion. But then I cannot zoom much at all from 24-55. I need(?) a longer zoom range.

I started looking at the 24-70 f/2.8 but it doesn’t have an IS! even though I love the the aperture, I finally decided that a shaky handy cam look is worse than a high-iso desaturated grainy look. Then suddenly the 24-105 f/4 came to the light. I was really torn until I saw this review.

http://www.pauljoy.com/gear/cameras-lenses/canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-is-lens-for-video/

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-mk-iii-hd/306611-24-70mm-vs-24-105mm.html

The bokah won’t be as big of an issue for comedy or general purpose shot. And for the dreamy bokah cinematic shot, I would definitely put the camera on a tripod and use the 50mm 1.4 so that part is fine. It really is just a toss up between keep using the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as it is and not use the 5D for mid-range video zooming or get the 24-105 f/4 and crank up the ISO (which would be less of an issue for the 5D anyways)…..

The word is, I will get the 24-105 (what a deal if you get it with the 5D!) and try it out…..

I’m officially tied of my 18-55mm. After taking hundreds of photos and several side by side tests of tree branches, I’ve concluded that between the low sharpness, low color separation and CA, I just cannot get a image that is crispy and clean enough for me. Especially when you compare the images to those from the 70-200, they are just pathetic. Granted, it was used. I paid $100 for it so I don’t feel too bad to keep it or sell it. Next question is tougher, what do I upgrade it to?

(http://camerablognetwork.com/2009/05/canon-17-40-versus-18-55-is-comaprison-revisted-post-canon-50d-af-micro-adjust/)

Options:
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM $799.99

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM $1,179.00

EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM $599.99

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM $839.99

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $859.99

(The prices are Canon’s official prices. for reference.)

Both 17-55 f/2.8 and 10-22 get very high recommedation. 17-55 is a great walk around lens and 10-22 is highly recommended and used by pros for landscape. But since 17-55 is twice the price and still a EF-S, I’m excluding that one (very hard since people keep bringing that up!) 10-22 is nice but a bit too specialized for me at this point. So it’s a pass too.

There are 3rd party lens that are highly recommended, but I still feel a little intimidated to go that route (Tamron 17-50 F2.8, Sigma 17-70)

Ok. between 15-85, 17-85, and 17-40 f/4L. 15-85 is newer and positioned to replace 17-85 and supposedly has better IQ. Though the latter is a bit cheaper, especially if you get a used one, I decided to skip it this time.

Between 15-85 and 17-40…ahhh, it’s a really tough call. The first one has bigger range (I do like the additional 45mm. Even on the 18-55, I notice myself wanting to go longest often, but then I’m bugged by the 5.6 aperture.) The IS is really really attractive too. Most reviews are saying the IQ of 17-40 is just slightly better than 15-85.

I finally found a good thorough review of both lenses (though I wished he had a tree branch comparison. To me, that’s often the nail on the coffin.

http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm

(“The 15-85 IS USM is a great lens, obviously it has the most range of all before mentioned lenses, it’s very sharp, has less distortion and CA than the 17-85 and has very effective IS. Obviously it’s the most expensive too – it goes for ~$700 – at this price you can consider the 17-55 F2.8 IS too.”)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

Very nice landscape photos shot with inexpensive lens:
ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/stevedickey/

I’ve had my 60D for over a month now. It was teeth grinding to see the price break but it was almost expected. Oh well. I had lots of fun with the 50mm f1.8 lens. Lots of learning with aperture v.s. speed, some composition and lighting.

I purchased a simple $30 Nikon lens to Canon body adapter hoping to try out my friend’s Nikon lens. It was rather disappointing. I cannot adjust the aperture. The only thing i can do is to set the camera to be aperture sensitive or totally manual. But it is so dark! Both with his 18-55mm and 55-200m. I pretty much cannot see anything in side, when shooting the kitchen, it took the camera 15-18″” to take a similar photo that the Canon 50mm can do with 10 seconds with f22! I thought the Nikons might get stuck at the smallest aperature but even outside it was dark (takes 1/4 to take picture of a tree 2 hours before sunset). What the *)**?

So back to looking at Canon lens. I like my 50mm very much for portrait (I wanted a 50mm 1.4 for blurring out the background more but turns out at f1.8 it’s hard to keep both eyes in focus! 2 – 3.2 is much better), but I cannot take it to a party. Not wide enough for multiple people shot without backing up across the room. Not being able to zoom also kills the fun of shooting people on the street when you are inside of a car.

=====
Second lens: EF-s 18-55mm. Not really pretty for filming regular interior scene. I guess I’ll save it for wide angle shots. Didn’t test how much darker it is when it is on the same aperture as the 50mm prime. I also didn’t like the hardness (the prime made everything softer and warmer) The zoom is great for random party scene I guess. But next lens I buy will be an L lens.
–update: 12/20. I have been on the road for a week. Some stop and go, mostly in the car. The 18-55 turns out to be exceptionally useful as a general purpose outdoor lens. I just set the camera to landscape mode and snap. It’s 3stop IS enables me to shoot some great photos in the car! The image doesn’t look as sharp as the 70-200mm but it does enable me to capture the wide angle which I find myself using a lot. It does bother me quite a bit that at 55mm when you want to have more of a focused shot, the maximum aperture is 5.6 which pretty much always flattens the picture. It’s not very sharp at that focal length either. Also, without a solid side by side testing to support my argument, I just feel that it’s slower even at the same focal length+aperture as my 50mm f1.8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

Several things from the review:
1.Manual focusing with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens is difficult at best. With no dedicated focus ring, this lens uses the extending portion of the inner barrel as its manual focus ring
2.While the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens does not employ Canon’s best USM autofocus system, the one used is not bad. The noise is low and the speed is very decent. I have found it to autofocus very consistently accurate. Of course, DOF (Depth of Field) is generally deep with this slow (narrow max aperture) lens – making AF precision less critical/noticeable. — of course, comparing the USM in 70-200mm, focusing on this lens is quite annoying
3. Since the aperture remains at its max opening until the shot is taken, a small max opening (such as f/5.6) means lower performance AF and a dark viewfinder – and a grainy-appearing Live View preview image (if your DSLR has this feature). — I’ve been wondering why I only see the grain using this lens (of course, with the Nikon lens that I borrowed which was stuck all the way the narrowest without the proper adapter)
4. For the money, the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens performs very well optically. From 18mm through 35mm or so, center sharpness is reasonable wide open and reaches its optimal sharpness at f/5.6. Corners in this focal length range are relatively sharp. Wide open center-of-the-lens performance remains similar throughout the focal length range until the long end where this lens becomes soft. At 55mm, even f/8 is not as sharp as I’d like to see. Color is good but contrast could be a little better (this is most noticeable when comparing with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens). CA is somewhat strong toward the corners but flare is very well controlled. Vignetting is not severe, but noticeable on the wide end. — Interesting. Without precise testing, I can look at the photos and say they just don’t look as stunning as the L lens.Ha.

the step up is 17-40mm F/4L or EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (the second one is built well plus IS! but it’s an EF-s). Though for landscape, people are saying that 17-40 might not be wide enough for a crop cam, 10-22mm is better…oh my
==========

Third lens:yes, I got my first L-lens, the 70-200mm, F/4L. So far, I’m very happy with the image quality (it’s SO sharp and rich!) but not happy for the usage. It’s telephoto so not a general purpose, I know. I had this perception that telephoto is used for landscape (which is still true, but apparently not as useful as a wide angle) yet most times I’m reaching for the 18-55 instead. More learning ahead. I would hate to return it….

===============

This is a very good page giving introductory on starter lens but more importantly why you need them and what upgrade option you can have for what scenario.

http://www.suite101.com/content/recommended-canon-and-nikon-dslr-lenses-a128943

another good page on what lens to buy

http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/dslrlens.html

FAQ lots of info

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html