| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2006 09:53:44 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
What's so great about the 5D?? I can see what's great about the 1D Mark II, I'd buy it in a heart beat. But, except for more MPs, I really don't see that the 5D is any better than my 30D. |
Two words: Full Frame :) |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 09:56:07 AM · #27 |
That's quite a collection! I wouldn't sell or trade up any of those. The Canon 100-400 will indeed give you more reach and somewhat better image quality, but there's something to be said for portability. Your 70-300 is pretty darn good and the 100-400 is a monster to lug around, so unless you find yourself wanting more zoom I'd just stay with that.
I'd vote for the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 (see the portfolios of Ursula and Dax-) and a 580ex flash. Another excellent option would be a set of AlienBees lights if you don't have any. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 09:57:44 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I really don't see that the 5D is any better than my 30D. |
With a 10-22mm lens at my disposal, I've never really felt compelled to borrow the 5D from the office. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 10:17:51 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by pianomom:
Lol! Do any of us usually "need" another lens? I wasn't expecting to get the extra money so.....
Rex, if I went with fast primes, would the 35mm be better to get than the 50mm since I have the 85mm and the 60 macro? |
need more lenses? no, most of us don't need them. we just have GAS... Glass Acquisition Syndrome...
i relieved mine recently by purchasing the sigma 30mm 1.4 lovely lense that would give you a fast prime in the "normal" field of view on the cropped sensor, the focus is fast and quiet, and it's wicked sharp... had it at the fair last night and, while i was on kiddie rides with my 2yr old, my wife decided she loves it, too...
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 10:28:21 AM · #30 |
I too was going to suggest the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, ditch the 85mm f/1.8 and also get the 50mm f/1.4. I think you could be happy between those two lenses.
I wouldn't get the 100mm f/2.8 unless you were really dissatisfied with the performance of the 60mm macro lens. If you were, it'd be more of a trade-in trade-up situation.
You might also consider something similar for your Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-300 IS... I bet the pair of them could be sold and you could get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.
That would probably eat up your budget there...
If you want more reach, another superb lens that could be considered is the Sigma 120-300 f/4 plus a 1.4X TC. That's seriously droolworthy. Check it out on the net and photozone. You'd have to like shooting at f/8 a lot though... More for if you wanted to do wildlife and birding really. You might end up spending more than your budget on just the gimball and tripod though if you go that route...
Aside from that, unless you were really attached, I'd probably suggest considering how you feel about the range of the 28-75 vs the equivalent 17-50 f/2.8 also by Tamron. It's more of a suitable range for a 1.6X crop...
It might be a bit of a better choice if you didn't feel a real need for using the 50-85mm end of your 17-85mm lens.
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 10:31:02. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:06:46 AM · #31 |
| Which is the better lens between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon Canon 35mm 2.0? (image, speed, etc.) I like the 1.4 of the Sigma but is 1.4 THAT much faster than 2.0? (I see a big difference in my 85 1.8 and my Sigma 2.8) Just wondering too how much difference is the 2.0 from 2.8, etc. too. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:19:49 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by pianomom:
Which is the better lens between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon Canon 35mm 2.0? (image, speed, etc.) I like the 1.4 of the Sigma but is 1.4 THAT much faster than 2.0? (I see a big difference in my 85 1.8 and my Sigma 2.8) Just wondering too how much difference is the 2.0 from 2.8, etc. too. |
f1.4 is a full stop faster than f2.0, so you can shoot at twice the shutter speed. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:27:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by pianomom:
Just wondering too how much difference is the 2.0 from 2.8, etc. too. |
Decreasing the aperture by a full stop (halving the amount of light it lets through), multiplies the f-number by the square root of 2 (approx. 1.4). So an aperture sequence in full stops is: 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, 64, and so forth... |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:04:07 PM · #34 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/13/2026 06:12:49 PM EST.
