Using Canon you could go something like:

10-22
28-70
70-200

The if you find the 70-200 is too long for some application you've got the versatility and quality of the 28-70

As to your point about the K-5, Veato. I've just read all of this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/canon-7d-vs-pentax-k-5-review/conclusion-value.html

And the AF performance is the only thing that's an issue for me. They even say during the review, that they wouldn't recommend it explicitly for sports. Outside of that, the K-5 makes a great proposition to be honest (as a body). Then it's back to lenses as suggested in my post this morning.

As an interesting aside, Snapsort gives the edge to the K5 and it even has less shutter lag, which I never would've thought possible. But in my hands, the 7D was clearly the quickest thing going.

Heather, in place of the L series 70-200, what would you suggest would give me a more usable wide end whilst retaining the performance?

Not a clue. You seem to have a very high expectation of the glass you're after!

All my prime lenses are Canon - not L series: I don't have bottomless pockets, but they are all bright glass. All my zooms are third party, and I'm very happy with them. Specifically, I own three Sigma lenses, because they were within my budget. I couldn't afford the equivalent Canon glass, so I investigated alternatives. The Sigma ƒ/2.8 70-200 is damned heavy, but gives some superb images when you hit the "sweet spot" (around ƒ/8 to ƒ/11). The model I bought has been replaced by a stabilised version, with a price to match. The ƒ/4-5.6 28-300 zoom is no longer in production, but has proved to be a great walkabout lens - if heavy. The 10-20mm wangle is an enormous amount of fun to use.

I want to get an ƒ/2.8 17-50-ish as a walkabout. Currently, Tamron is in my budget range, and seems to technically better than the equivalent Sigma.

A lot wider
Canon 24-105 L f4 IS USM
A little bit wider
Tokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX (APS-C only)

Heather I love my 17-50 Tammy. It rarely comes off the camera now. I appreciate it's not 'L' glass but for the money it's stupidly good IMO. Not sure how much of this comes down to how good a copy you get mind.

Interesting reading.

For me, Nikon seem to delight in hiding the things you'll want to use. YMMV, of course. To be honest, I suspect most users don't often go delving into the menus to set things up.
I imagine most of us stick it on Aperture priority or Shutter priority, control the ISO to whatever we need and get shooting. I'll visit the menus to format a card, and that's about it. Everything else is done off the back - shooting burst or single, the AF function, moving focus points about, aperture size, ISO, shutter speed.
If it's video I'm shooting, then I might visit the menu to set up a specific colour style (the Technicolor profile sometimes).

The Sigma lenses I've used have been great - the 8-16mm at work is lovely. The pro I was assisting over the summer had a lovely Tamron that she uses a lot. Sure, the L series would be nice, but absolutely necessary for 90% of the stuff we shoot? Not so much.

I'm working out how I can get my sweaty paws on a 7D and a 24-105mm.

Right, lots of posts here saying lots of things since the last time I visited.
Really glad Old Ben got some hands-on time with the cameras. At least now there's a physical connection with everything that has just been in the abstract up to this point. (8+)

In terms of outstanding questions, I don't really know what's going on, so can someone please summarise for me?
Is it currently down to the D7000 and 7D?
Are we waiting on new shiny from photo expo?
Is there anything else pertinent that I'm missing?

Mark

Ok, two things:

1) I keep seeing this word "copy" in reference to lenses. Does it only apply to 3rd party lenses? What exactly does it mean?
2) Are we saying that 70mm on a crop sensor (particularly the smaller Canon) is too long for all day mountain use? I know you guys maybe don't have that experience, but do you have a gut feeling on it?
Looking at numbers on a 1D MkIII it's 91mm, on any small Nikon it's 105mm and on the 7D 112mm. Much as something similar to the 24-105, or that kind of range, might be very useful both on piste and around and about, I'm reluctant to duplicate range where possible.

Just how long is 112mm? Can anyone think of a way to describe the distances, sizes involved. And realistically how much difference is 91-112 when looking at the sports pros that use that range?

Really?
I just need to press two buttons, another to confirm, then that's that. Card reformatted.
Of course, your mileage may vary. (8+)

Mark

Mark, that's about the size of it. I will revisit the both shops with my own slightly faster SD card to confirm the possibility that the D7000 will suffice for shorter bursts with a second or two recovery in between for writing.

I'm trying to figure out lens options for each, as that will inform overall pricing and therefore help to determine the outcome.

Alex, I really think if you played with a D7000 AND a 7D, you'd see that there's really not a great deal of difference when compared to say the D300/D3 and xxxD/xxD line, which is probably where most people get their Nikon vs Canon perspectives. That said, if all you wanted was a priority mode and adjustment of said parameters without moving your eye from the viewfinder, I believe either a D300 or D7000 would honestly be just as easy as your current camera (once you figured it out) and would arguably give you better low-light results with similar glass. Would it fix your need for FX? Dunno, but it honestly might (in the opinion of a guy who's spent 3 hours talking [LIFTED] and holding cameras!)

Where?
Not being flippant here, but normally I read thnks like 'equivalent', not 'copy'.

Mark

Canon/Nikon/Pentax release a lens. Sigma/Tamron/whoever takes it apart and makes a copy, basically. Same focal length, aperture etc. Optical quality may vary, as may things like motor speed if it's in the lens and not driven from the camera.




70mm is fine. Actually, for some of the burlesque stuff I've shot from the back of the hall at 70mm and the stage fills the frame nicely. Then I can punch in to the 300mm for facial close ups and head shots. It's quite handy, and I'll be using it for 90% of the Exmouth show.

Have a look at http://www.expertphotography.com/unders ... easy-steps



On the 550D, it's Menu > Right 4 clicks to the orange spanner > down 4 > Set > confirm.
Or after doing it once, Menu > Set > Confirm, assuming you've not been to any other menus in the mean time.

Coolio.
Keep us posted. (8+)

Mark

I tend to go into the menus very very rarely. The K-5 has a nifty feature that changes the status screen to a control panel with the press of a button. Now I can get to common (and some not so common) settings very quickly without using the menu screens.

It's hard to quantify, but let's have a go.

(All figures assume full frame.)

Most photographers who do portraiture like a 50mm lens, some like an 85mm, some a 100mm. Do the maths on a small sensor body (1.6x on the 7D).

To my mind, the 70-200 will be too "zoomy" to use indoors, unless you're trying to get shots of people across a room! If I get time, I'll pose some shots with Best Beloved tomorrow to show what I mean.