Beginner Lens recommendation needed for canon 5D Mk3

M

mugpug

Messages
13
Name
sue
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all!

My trusty Nikon D3100 finally gave up the ghost and I'm thinking of upgrading to a Canon D5 as I need more professional results.
The trouble is I don't know which lens is best for my needs.
I mostly photograph vintage items for my etsy store (I'd give a link but not sure if it's allowed...)
 
Upgrading won't necessarily give you more professional results. He's a secret, shhhhh, it's not the camera that produces professional results it's the professional person. Secondly do canon make the D5?
 
Yes Canon make the D5 as stated in my opening post and title. I also state that my original camera is BROKEN so need a new one.
 
mugpug said:
Yes Canon make the D5 as stated in my opening post and title. I also state that my original camera is BROKEN so need a new one.
Click to expand...
Nikon make the D5 but Canon do make a 5D, what makes you want to switch to Canon when you have used Nikon?
 
mugpug said:
Yes Canon make the D5 as stated in my opening post and title. I also state that my original camera is BROKEN so need a new one.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the 5d? And which mk were you thinking of?
 
My favorite food blogger uses a mark 3. I really like the results. She uses 3 different lenses but I only have the money to buy one ;( so need to choose carefully
 
mugpug said:
The trouble is I don't know which lens is best for my needs.
I mostly photograph vintage items for my etsy store
Click to expand...
You could help us to help you.

Firstly what lens(es) did you use with your Nikon, and how well suited were they to the task?

Secondly what kind of vintage items? Vintage cars, vintage clothes, vintage jewellery, all require very different photographic approaches.


PS For your stated purpose (static objects, controlled lighting, low resolution output) you won't get any better pictures with a better camera. But you don't need me to tell you that.
 
Spend your money on a cheaper DSLR, maybe a decent prime and some good lighting / backgrounds. If you've any change from the money you were going to spend on a 5D, then go on a training course on how to use the lights. That will give you more professional results than just a better body.
 
If you photograph mainly static items and not lots of fast-moving sports or wildlife stuff then perhaps think about a used Canon 6D Mk1 in mint condition from a reputable specialist shop or dealer (with a good long warranty)? With the money you save as opposed to buying a 5D MkIII (particularly a new one) you might be able to afford another lens, or be well on the way to one.

If just one lens, then depending on your needs, perhaps have a think about the Canon EF 24-105 L IS Mk 1 (once again, available second hand at fairly reasonable money, but try to get a mint condition one as it was a popular lens so there should be plenty about to choose from). It's a handy focal length to have and was more or less the 'kit' lens for the 6D. The 6D Mk1 is also smaller and lighter than the 5D Mk III, and the image quality is as near as makes no difference (and perhaps even slightly better in low light/high ISO conditions). Anyone else here thinking the same?

Anyway, there should be plenty of reviews to read about these possible options on the internet, so take your time, read up, ask any questions you may have on the forum, and pick the right camera and lens for your needs. Hope this suggestion is useful. (y)
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
You could help us to help you.

Firstly what lens(es) did you use with your Nikon, and how well suited were they to the task?

Secondly what kind of vintage items? Vintage cars, vintage clothes, vintage jewellery, all require very different photographic approaches.


PS For your stated purpose (static objects, controlled lighting, low resolution output) you won't get any better pictures with a better camera. But you don't need me to tell you that.
Click to expand...

I photograph static, small vintage items (mostly cookware) in natural light then adjust in photoshop.
My Nikon lens was a AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5 6 G it worked pretty well but is now broken.
 
Concentrating on lighting and technique is far more important than spending wads on a camera. For shots like this I doubt you'd see any improvement using the 5D3 over something like a D3200. However, if you are intent on getting a FF camera then have you considered something like the D700? Superb camera and the choice of pros for years in the past and can be picked up pretty cheap used.

As for lenses, ideally we need to see samples of the type of shots that you want to do.
 
snerkler said:
Concentrating on lighting and technique is far more important than spending wads on a camera. For shots like this I doubt you'd see any improvement using the 5D3 over something like a D3200. However, if you are intent on getting a FF camera then have you considered something like the D700? Superb camera and the choice of pros for years in the past and can be picked up pretty cheap used.

As for lenses, ideally we need to see samples of the type of shots that you want to do.
Click to expand...

Here are 2 examples of the work I achieved with my old Nikon D3100 so you can see what kind of objects I'm photographing
DSC_8001 (2).JPG DSC_9121.JPG
 
What's broken? If your camera is broken can you replace it and use the same lens or is that bust too?
 
I like

http://www.cookrepublic.com/
woof woof said:
What's broken? If your camera is broken can you replace it and use the same lens or is that bust too?
Click to expand...

I can't use in auto focus mode so the image won't show on the back lcd screen. When I press the button to bring the image into focus the camera makes a tired buzzing sound so I'm thinking it's the camera.
 
mugpug said:
I like

http://www.cookrepublic.com/


I can't use in auto focus mode so the image won't show on the back lcd screen. When I press the button to bring the image into focus the camera makes a tired buzzing sound so I'm thinking it's the camera.
Click to expand...

Why not take it to a good dealer, if there is one near you, and maybe they can confirm that the camera is bust but the lens is ok or the other way round. Maybe you could then either get a quote for the camera or lens to be repaired or give it up as a bad job and buy something else?

The reason I'm saying this is I don't think your subject matter is too taxing and that you could probably manage perfectly well with something costing a lot less than a Canon 5D and new lens.

If you have to start again and replace both camera and lens maybe you could look at similar kit to what you have at the moment and buy used? There does seem to be a lot of used kit available and you can save quite a bit buying used :D
 
Last edited:
mugpug said:
I can't use in auto focus mode so the image won't show on the back lcd screen. When I press the button to bring the image into focus the camera makes a tired buzzing sound so I'm thinking it's the camera.
Click to expand...
If it won't autofocus, it's more likely to be the lens that's faulty than the camera. You said it's an AF-S lens, so the focusing motor is in the lens, and if you're hearing a buzzing sound it's more likely to be coming from the focusing motor than anything else. There are no moving parts in the camera that are involved in the autofocus operation.
 
StewartR said:
If it won't autofocus, it's more likely to be the lens that's faulty than the camera. You said it's an AF-S lens, so the focusing motor is in the lens, and if you're hearing a buzzing sound it's more likely to be coming from the focusing motor than anything else. There are no moving parts in the camera that are involved in the autofocus operation.
Click to expand...

That helps a lot, thank you!
I'm guessing that's not repairable..
 
mugpug said:
That helps a lot, thank you!
I'm guessing that's not repairable..
Click to expand...
It won't be economically viable to repair. You can pick up good used 18-55 AFS lenses for around £54 from mpb, they come with a 6 month warranty. They currently have one for £34 but it is the orginal model and I'd give that a miss. They also have an 18-70 which is a really nice lens for £64
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/brands/nikon/
There are plenty of other good sites too for used gear and these lenses come up all the time. Make sure to get a lens with AFS (or AF-S) in the name as AF lenses won't autofocus on the D3100 - also I don't think the newer AF-P lenses work on the D3100.

As for photographing the crockery, maybe also consider a macro lens, something like a Nikon 60mm f2.8 afs may be just the job as may the 40mm DX macro or even the 85mm DX macro. But they are not essential as very good results can be achieved with the kit lenses.
 
PaulButler said:
It won't be economically viable to repair. You can pick up good used 18-55 AFS lenses for around £54 from mpb, they come with a 6 month warranty. They currently have one for £34 but it is the orginal model and I'd give that a miss. They also have an 18-70 which is a really nice lens for £64
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/brands/nikon/
There are plenty of other good sites too for used gear and these lenses come up all the time. Make sure to get a lens with AFS (or AF-S) in the name as AF lenses won't autofocus on the D3100 - also I don't think the newer AF-P lenses work on the D3100.

As for photographing the crockery, maybe also consider a macro lens, something like a Nikon 60mm f2.8 afs may be just the job as may the 40mm DX macro or even the 85mm DX macro. But they are not essential as very good results can be achieved with the kit lenses.
Click to expand...

Some really useful stuff here, cheers!
 
You could take your camera to a camera shop and ask them if they could try it with another lens for you to see if it's the camera or the lens that's got the issue. Then you might be able to buy another lens (used or new) from the camera shop and be back in business again for not too much money. Or (and now I'm probably going to upset some people here, but what the heck!) if it won't strain you financially or put you in debt, and you want to take this opportunity to upgrade your gear, then you could perhaps get something like the Canon 6D and an L-series Canon lens?

Yes, you can get good results from your existing camera/lens set up, but you may have to work a bit harder to get them. I upgraded to a Canon 6D three years ago from a Canon 400D (I know that was a big upgrade in terms of years and spec, but hear me out). I could get good looking images from the 400D, particularly when the lighting conditions were favourable, but I was amazed by how much better the images looked straight from the camera with the 6D. Particularly in sub-optimal lighting conditions, and also with a dedicated Canon Speedlite flash (a 430EX II, I think). If I wish, I can put the thing in full auto, press the shutter and get a well-exposed, lovely-looking shot almost every single time.

So yes, you can get good-looking results from a cheaper camera and lens, if you work at it and get the lighting right, etc., but I find the 6D makes a real difference in borderline or difficult lighting conditions. Plus, I found I can get some nicer looking bokeh/shallower depth of field from a full frame camera, if I want it. So weigh up your options and finances carefully; you may well be able to carry on with your existing camera if it's just the lens... or you may decide to trade the camera body in (if it works) against an upgrade. As long as you aren't going to overstretch your finances there is nothing wrong with wanting a more advanced camera, providing you can genuinely use the benefits it may bring.

The Canon 6D Mk1 would be more than up to the job of photographing those objects in your photos, and the images I saw when I clicked the first page of the cookery website you linked to. I find the images from the 6D Mk 1 tend to look very nice straight from the camera as JPEGs too, so that might possibly save you a bit of time in Photoshop. So I don't think you need to go to the expense of a 5D III or a 6D Mk II (so watch you don't get talked into that by a sales person!), as I said previously, the low light/higher ISO performance of the 6D is considered to be better than the 5D Mk III too, so it could actually be better for the natural light shots you take? Weigh up your options and see what you think.

As for a lens, if those shots are typical of what you do and need, then perhaps think about a Canon 24-70 L (either the f2.8 or the f4 IS) if you can find a good, mint, latest version of one of those second hand via a reputable dealer with a long warranty? They are more expensive than the EF 24-105 L IS Mk 1, but they are meant to be a bit sharper. If you always shoot using a tripod then the Image Stabilisation option might be less appealing to you, and the additional bokeh the f2.8 might give may be more useful? Once again, do some internet research, look at some examples of the images from each of these lenses and see what you think would suit you the best.

If your existing camera body works and just needs a new lens then do think carefully about upgrading, you'll probably have to sell a lot of cookware to make enough profit to pay for a Canon full frame camera and L series lens (even a good, used one) so don't let your heart rule your head! Best of luck deciding on what's best for you, and I hope the above suggestions are useful. (y)
 
Last edited:
Oh, the other thing to consider is will your computer cope with the increase in image file size (from 14mp to 20+mp), both in terms of processing power using Photoshop, and hard drive capacity when storing the images? Will that need an upgrade too, if so, perhaps factor in the price of that when considering what to do? Also, Canon EF-S lenses won't fit a full frame Canon camera body, so make sure you're looking at EF lenses when weighing up options!
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Oh, the other thing to consider is will your computer cope with the increase in image file size (from 14mp to 20+mp), both in terms of processing power using Photoshop, and hard drive capacity when storing the images? Will that need an upgrade too, if so, perhaps factor in the price of that when considering what to do? Also, Canon EF-S lenses won't fit a full frame Canon camera body, so make sure you're looking at EF lenses when weighing up options!
Click to expand...

Your advice strikes a cord with me as I take 100s of photos every day. The less I have to do in the editing suite the better but as you said it would take a long time to make the money back... I'm going to go with some suggestions of a couple of second hand lenses for my existing camera in the meantime and start saving up!
 
mugpug said:
Here are 2 examples of the work I achieved with my old Nikon D3100 so you can see what kind of objects I'm photographing
View attachment 110592 View attachment 110593
Click to expand...
Yeah, you don't need an all singing all dancing camera for this kind of thing tbh, any modern DSLR will be more than adequate. I would concentrate far more on lighting and composition.
 
mugpug said:
Your advice strikes a cord with me as I take 100s of photos every day. The less I have to do in the editing suite the better but as you said it would take a long time to make the money back... I'm going to go with some suggestions of a couple of second hand lenses for my existing camera in the meantime and start saving up!
Click to expand...
Your photography could be improved vastly with some lighting gear, or some training.

Spending money on cameras won't improve anything.
 
Snip:
Phil V said:
Spending money on cameras won't improve anything.
Click to expand...

So how come professional photographers spend so much on top-notch camera bodies and lenses then? :whistle: I understand the point you are making, but it's not entirely true to say that a high-quality camera and lens set up won't improve anything. I totally agree with you that training, experience, and a working knowledge of lighting techniques would give most people the best chance of improving their photography (and probably the 'biggest bang for buck', providing the training 'sinks in') but I'm not aware of any mainstream pro photographers consistently using Box Brownies or Zenit EMs as their main cameras. ;)

However, when they do, they'll usually produce some great-looking photos. Sorry to seem a bit pedantic but good gear can make a noticeable difference (if only by allowing detail to be recovered from a poorly exposed shot), but training and/or experience is needed (and pretty much essential) to make full advantage of it and do the purchase justice. (y) Maybe re-phrase that to 'Spending money on cameras won't improve technique'?
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Snip:

So how come professional photographers spend so much on top-notch camera bodies and lenses then? :whistle: I understand the point you are making, but it's not entirely true to say that a high-quality camera and lens set up won't improve anything. I totally agree with you that training, experience, and a working knowledge of lighting techniques would give most people the best chance of improving their photography (and probably the 'biggest bang for buck', providing the training 'sinks in') but I'm not aware of any mainstream pro photographers consistently using Box Brownies or Zenit EMs as their main cameras. ;)

However, when they do, they'll usually produce some great-looking photos. Sorry to seem a bit pedantic but good gear can make a noticeable difference (if only by allowing detail to be recovered from a poorly exposed shot), but training and/or experience is needed (and pretty much essential) to make full advantage of it and do the purchase justice. (y) Maybe re-phrase that to 'Spending money on cameras won't improve technique'?
Click to expand...

In this particular instance, a better camera will improve very little. The subject being photographed is not moving and it's in decent light, and the end result is simply to illustrate a product on a website and so will be viewed on a screen at low resolution. The potential viewer is unlikely to be interested in the quality of the photo.

Pro's spend money on top notch bodies due to their durability, high frame rate, AF performance, ability to crop, low light performance, and any number of reasons that wouldn't apply for the OP's application.
 
Mr Badger said:
Snip:

So how come professional photographers spend so much on top-notch camera bodies and lenses then? :whistle: I understand the point you are making, but it's not entirely true to say that a high-quality camera and lens set up won't improve anything. I totally agree with you that training, experience, and a working knowledge of lighting techniques would give most people the best chance of improving their photography (and probably the 'biggest bang for buck', providing the training 'sinks in') but I'm not aware of any mainstream pro photographers consistently using Box Brownies or Zenit EMs as their main cameras. ;)

However, when they do, they'll usually produce some great-looking photos. Sorry to seem a bit pedantic but good gear can make a noticeable difference (if only by allowing detail to be recovered from a poorly exposed shot), but training and/or experience is needed (and pretty much essential) to make full advantage of it and do the purchase justice. (y) Maybe re-phrase that to 'Spending money on cameras won't improve technique'?
Click to expand...
Its more about reliability. The camera is the tool needed by the professional photographer to make money and get him/her the next job which is the most important ever. There is No excuses for not delivering each and every time so while almost any offering out there gives more image quality than most of us need not all can handle rainshowers, duststorms, long hours of being knocked around, endless vibrations or continously shooting. Thats mostly what you get from buying a probody, the confidence that you can fullfill your contract
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Badger said:
Snip:

So how come professional photographers spend so much on top-notch camera bodies and lenses then? :whistle: I understand the point you are making, but it's not entirely true to say that a high-quality camera and lens set up won't improve anything. ...
Click to expand...
I'll bite, as I'm bored...

Some professional photographers spend a lot on camera bodies.

Because they need an advanced AF system or ruggedness not available elsewhere.

All professionals understand that the photographers talent is the first priority.
2nd is the quality of the light, and in this particular situation, that'd be money well spent.
3rd is the unique properties you can get from some lenses
And lastly the camera can make a difference.

Now back to your answer; Yes a pro can make a difference with a better camera, but an unskilled amateur? Would be putting their priorities in the wrong order, training and lighting as I said would be money well spent.
 
mugpug said:
I photograph static, small vintage items (mostly cookware) in natural light then adjust in photoshop.
My Nikon lens was a AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5 6 G it worked pretty well but is now broken.
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with Canon or with full frame but it seems to me a 24-70mm will cover approximately what you have been using, and there seems to be an f4 and an f2.8 lens if you are feeling rich. Of course all the other comments are true but if you want a new camera ... If you want a new camera there is also a Nikon D810 and the latest D850 that will capture lots more pixels, not that they will be of any use if your photos end up on the web but the cameras have potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top