Recommending a Canon

[Isithombe]

So I have a co-worker asking for advice on buying his first dslr, video is quite important to him so I am thinking the new Rebel T2i is the way to go. I believe it has auto focus in video mode and 30 fps, I cannot recommend my D90 as a "good" video camera for the type of videos he would be shooting . There is quality video on my camera, but trying to chase his young daughter around in manual focus is not going to result in great captuered memories.

Ok so he says his budget is $1500, but I've explained the difference between fast glass and reasonably priced lenses. I know he can afford to skip right into the good stuff, and I believe if it's possible then it's the way to go. I understand dx and fx, I shoot a dx and use fx glass and love it and will be getting more fx glass before I move to an fx body. From looking at the options here's the lenses I am thinking of suggesting

Tokina 16-50mm f2.8 AT-X 165 Pro DX, I know Tokina has some lenses with great reps (11-16 comes to mind)
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or even EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM if he really wants to step up.

How do these look? Am I missing some obvious choices?

Also what's the best way to go for flashes with a Canon?

Thanks for any input or suggestions.

[OsmosisStudios]

if he's doing anything with AF in video, he'll be sadly disappointed with anything dSLR based. He needs a proper HD video camera.

[Isithombe]

I see, well I'll tell him to buy a card and go to the store to try it out and then view it at home. with all the marketing it can be hard to convince someone that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

any ideas for the lenses? as he may well go for it anyhow

[donniecs]

Originally Posted by Isithombe

Ok so he says his budget is $1500, but I've explained the difference between fast glass and reasonably priced lenses.
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or even EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM if he really wants to step up.

The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM retails for $839.99 and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM retails for $1699. The faster glass puts him out of his desired price range with just a lens and no body. Is he shooting in low light or other conditions where the f/2.8 would be required? One lens is twice as much as the other.

[Isithombe]

well I know it's an expensive stop, but are there other differences between the two? I know in nikkors line up some lenses stand out over others, sharpness, bokeh, focus speed and accuracy. so even though I think most people shoot in low light or like a shallower dof some times, there could be more to know than the specs. the price is something he can consider, his original price point was pretty loose. I know if I was to re-do my original purchase I would have bought the 24-70 2.8 instead of the 18-55 vr and 55-200 vr.

[donniecs]

Originally Posted by Isithombe

well I know it's an expensive stop, but are there other differences between the two? I know in nikkors line up some lenses stand out over others, sharpness, bokeh, focus speed and accuracy. so even though I think most people shoot in low light or like a shallower dof some times, there could be more to know than the specs.

Very true, I have no experience with either lens so I can't comment on quality of one over the other. Both being Canon L series glass with similar focal ranges I would assume the image quality would be fairly close also. I'd also like to here some experiences with both lens as the 16-35mm f/2.8L is the next lens on my list. I just think that the 26-35mm f/2.8 would be more versatile than the 17-40mm f/4.0 but is that extra versatility worth twice the price?

[Isithombe]

I guess he's going to have to think about meeting his expectations, the guy collects funky $600 nikes and generally has expensive taste. He and his wife will have to decide what they want to drop on their first step into the dslr. if they decide to start with a kit lens I don't think it would be long before he starts eyeying the fast stuff.

any flash recommendations?

[inkista]

Personally, if you think he's that much of a prestige-badge victim and upgrader, chances are good he'll just grab a 5DMkII and 24-105L to start with.

But honestly, my recommendation is typically to start with low-cost kit lenses, just to get enough lens experience to know what you want. Otherwise, you're forever chasing after what the latest review said was a must-have. Get the kit, a 50/1.8 II, and a 55-250 IS, and work your way out from there to which of the L glass you wanna snag.

Flash-wise, I also recommend holding back. Until you've mastered shooting in full Manual and the exposure triangle of iso, aperture, and shutter speed, flash is just going to be one big mystery.

But in Nikon terms, the 580EXII is similar to the SB-900, the 430EXII is similar to the SB-600. The 270EX is similar to the SB-400. The ST-E2 is similar to the SU-800. So, general recommendation would be to get the 580EXII, if it's easily afforded.

[Isithombe]

ya he likes shiny stuff, but like me the intial sticker shock might be enough for him to take a more gradual approach. if he gets the itch, then he can figure a way forward.

thanks for the help and input everyone, I appreciate it. I will helphim find his way best I can, but final decisions he can hammer out with his wife.

[Stellgar]

Have him look at the 7D and 15-85 USM IS combo has even more video options than the 5DMKII