Sound familiar?

When I first went to the DPR forums as a new Canon 300D owner, the advice I read over and over was that the body didn't matter very much to the final image. The forum regulars routinely stated that, given a limited budget, it was much more important to buy the best lenses one could afford rather than to spend most of one's money on the body. I believed that and even gave the same advice to others as I gained more experience with various lenses. For some time, I had a Rebel XT and several lenses costing far more than the body. There's clearly nothing wrong with budgeting that way, and I think it's the right solution for many people (eg. birders on a budget), but I have come to realize that it was the wrong approach for me. Right now, I have a 5D and three lenses (fewer than ever before), and 90% of my photos are taken with two Canon primes which cost me about $400 together - a 28mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. My photos have never been better, and I don't think there is any lens/body combo that would serve me better if I were to go with a less expensive body and more expensive glass.

Lens purchases are highly personal decisions. Just as I chose the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens over it's 50mm f/1.8 sibling, many others would have chosen the 28mm f/1.8 over the 28mm f/2.8. A few others would find both of those focal lengths to be boring or useless, and many more still would opt for the flexibility of zoom lenses rather than primes. Until recently, I never could have imagined that my most commonly used lens would be a prime. My exposure to the rangefinder forums helped me realize that primes were still a reasonable choice, embraced by many talented photographers.

As far as I can tell, there is no easy way to advise a new DSLR user as to which lenses to buy or how to budget between bodies and lenses. Some of the blanket advice we hear and repeat as gospel may in fact be counterproductive. Just something to keep in mind the next time a newbie asks how to spend $2500.

This is going to sound like a contradiction to my last post titled "I wish Canon would make better small lenses." I am greatly enjoying my cheap new lens, the EF 28mm f/2.8, which arrived in the mail yesterday. I dsicussed my rationale for purchasing this lens here. The 28/2.8 is so light and compact, it's almost like there's nothing on the 5D at all. It's just long enough to use the left hand for balance. The manual focus ring, while nothing great, is leaps ahead of that found on similarly inexpensive Canon lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 and the EF-S 18-55mm "kit lens." I like what I see so far in regular use, nice color and contrast stopped down. I haven't had reason to shoot it wide open yet. This lens has excellent flare resistance. Edge and corner sharpness are better than most reviews had seemed to indicate. Unlike my 24-105L, which has considerable barrel distortion on the wide end, this lens is nearly distortion free. For non speed freaks, this would be a very nice normal lens for a Rebel XT or XTi, providing great image characteristics in an extremely light and compact combination. For the 5D, I think the 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4 will make a terrific light kit for my style of shooting.

Downsides are as follows: Autofocus, while pretty fast, makes an annoying high-pitched noise. Lots of light falloff at maximum aperture. Build quality is overall cheap. As stated in the previous post, I really wish Canon would improve the build quality on these small primes.

A few examples from yesterday and today:

I've been thinking a lot recently about buying a new lens for street shooting with the 5D. The 24-105mm f/4L is incredibly versatile but makes for a heavy combination with the 5D at 3.5 lbs combined (2lbs for the 5D and 1.5 lbs for the 24-105L). It's also a somewhat imposing lens to have pointed in one's direction. I enjoy using the 5D with the 50mm f1.4 but want something wider. I've now settled on one of the oldest and possibly the most forgotten lens in the EF lineup, the 28mm f/2.8. Surprisingly, there are some reports that this lens is a better performer on full frame than on crop bodies (excepting light falloff of course), which would go a ways towards explaining why it has been largely forgotten in this digital age.

Why the EF 28mm f/2.8?
- At 1.7" long and 0.41 lbs, this lens is tiny.
- At an average used price of around $120, it's cheap. No Canon autofocus lens with a metal mount is cheaper.
- 28mm is an awesome focal length.
- It has a distance scale, great for setting up to take quick shots from the hip.
- Markus Hartel uses one.

Click here for an interesting comparison of 13 lenses at 28mm, tested on a Canon 5D. I think the EF 28mm f/2.8 does pretty well.

That's all for now. More when I get the lens!