DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Canon DSLR Owners
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/05/2004 01:03:55 AM · #1
Ok, here's the deal. You already own a Canon DSLR(1D,10d,D60, etc.)
So with that in mind, what Photography equipment would you buy if you had 2,300 U.S. dollars? If you include lenses make sure to include any accessories you feel they would need i.e. filters, teleconverters, etc. Please include the prices and where you can get it. I'll start out.
1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM $1,274.95
2. Tiffen 77mm Wide Angle Filter Kit $187.95
3. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM $679.95
4. Tiffen 77mm Photo Essentials Filter Kit $120.10
Total: $2,286.20
All available at Adorama and that price includes shipping to my address.
Feel free to list what you'd get and also feel free to praise or nitpick my choices.

02/05/2004 01:23:56 AM · #2
what about that new sigma zoom like a 14-35 or somthing like that?
02/05/2004 01:25:32 AM · #3
70-200mm 2.8L IS
400mm 5.6L
1.4 teleconverter

Ok I went over. :)
02/05/2004 08:14:17 AM · #4
Lens hoods for both lenses. The canon at least will come with one, don't know if the sigma does.

Do you have a decent tripod ? I'd get one of those before the other lenses.

What are the filter essentials kits you are spending $300 on ?

Canon 70-200 F4L for about $600 instead of the sigma maybe
Depends if you need the low light speed. Not sure how the Sigma is wide open though (i.e., if it isn't sharp at f2.8 and you always have to use it at f4 to get a decent picture, it doesn't help much) The 70-200 F4 is amazing wide open.
02/05/2004 08:32:49 AM · #5
Originally posted by jimmyn4:

Ok, here's the deal. You already own a Canon DSLR(1D,10d,D60, etc.)
So with that in mind, what Photography equipment would you buy if you had 2,300 U.S. dollars? If you include lenses make sure to include any accessories you feel they would need i.e. filters, teleconverters, etc. Please include the prices and where you can get it. I'll start out.
1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM $1,274.95
2. Tiffen 77mm Wide Angle Filter Kit $187.95
3. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM $679.95
4. Tiffen 77mm Photo Essentials Filter Kit $120.10
Total: $2,286.20
All available at Adorama and that price includes shipping to my address.
Feel free to list what you'd get and also feel free to praise or nitpick my choices.


For about $700 you can have the Canon 17-40 f4L and save almost $600, unless you really, really believe that 1 stop is worth it. Most of the reviews where they compare the 2 say the 17-40 is about as good as the 16-35.

These would be my current choices:

Sigma 12-24 (I admit it, I love wide angle)
Sigma 28-70 f2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 105 Macro
Canon 75-300 USM

If you wanted to spend more, the 70-200 f4L would be a good choice, especially if you get the 1.4x teleconverter (to get a 98-280 f5.6).

I'd just get UV filters for the 28-70 and the 75-300 and of course lens hoods all around.

I don't like buying filter "kits" because unless you know for sure you'll need every thing in the kit, you wind up paying for stuff you don't need.

Just some alternative opinions, spend as your needs warrant.

Message edited by author 2004-02-05 08:34:52.
02/05/2004 08:43:44 AM · #6
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you wanted to spend more, the 70-200 f4L would be a good choice, especially if you get the 1.4x teleconverter (to get a 98-280 f5.6).


Which amounts to 157-448mm on a 10D
02/05/2004 09:02:34 AM · #7
dont forget the Canon TC-80N3 Timer Remote Control unless you already have one

I would like to get these one day....
Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX AF Telephoto Macro
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO HSM
Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX APO RF HSM

and my huge wish list:

Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro

James

Message edited by author 2004-02-05 09:03:03.
02/05/2004 09:14:13 AM · #8
Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DF
Sigma 100-300/2.8 EX
Canon 50mm/1.8 (or 1.4 I had enough money left)
02/05/2004 10:40:31 AM · #9
Originally posted by Spazmo99:



For about $700 you can have the Canon 17-40 f4L and save almost $600, unless you really, really believe that 1 stop is worth it. Most of the reviews where they compare the 2 say the 17-40 is about as good as the 16-35.


I'm trying to decide about a decent L WA too and struggling with this. From my previous usage, I would expect I'd use such a lens pretty much stopped down a lot (wanting quite a lot of depth of field). In that I'm assuming that I would be mostly using such a lens for landscapes and
also assuming I'd be mostly using it on a tripod. Also, the WA are
pretty bad wide open from what I've seen too. This obviously is
very dependant on what you plan on doing with it. If you want a WA
to get lots of cool concert shots without flash, then the 2.8 is really worth it - same with the 70-200 f2.8 vs the 70-200f4 Ls - if you know how you want to normally use them you can make more financially prudent choices or splurge for something you know you've got to have.
02/05/2004 11:00:58 AM · #10
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:



For about $700 you can have the Canon 17-40 f4L and save almost $600, unless you really, really believe that 1 stop is worth it. Most of the reviews where they compare the 2 say the 17-40 is about as good as the 16-35.


I'm trying to decide about a decent L WA too and struggling with this. From my previous usage, I would expect I'd use such a lens pretty much stopped down a lot (wanting quite a lot of depth of field). In that I'm assuming that I would be mostly using such a lens for landscapes and
also assuming I'd be mostly using it on a tripod. Also, the WA are
pretty bad wide open from what I've seen too. This obviously is
very dependant on what you plan on doing with it. If you want a WA
to get lots of cool concert shots without flash, then the 2.8 is really worth it - same with the 70-200 f2.8 vs the 70-200f4 Ls - if you know how you want to normally use them you can make more financially prudent choices or splurge for something you know you've got to have.


Take a look at this comparison of the 2 lenses.

Luminous Landscape 17-40 vs. 16-35
02/05/2004 11:30:50 AM · #11
Canon EF 17-40 f/4L $699 (B&H Photo)

Canon EF 85 f/1.8 $329 (B&H Photo)

Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 $1389 (B&H Photo)

I know that goes over by about $100 but if I had to drop something I wouldn't get the 85mm lens right now. It's easier to come up with $350 down the road than $700 or $1300.

I got the 17-40 instead of saving for the 16-35 after checking out FredMiranda's review pages (I've seen several people mention starting a user review section on DPC and I'd be all for it -- some of the people on here are incredibly creative and I've seen much more of your work than of people on other sites).

Kev

Message edited by author 2004-02-05 11:32:16.
02/05/2004 02:09:31 PM · #12
Let your needs dictate what you buy. What do you need?
02/05/2004 02:13:39 PM · #13
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Canon EF 85 f/1.8 $329 (B&H Photo)

Thanks Kev - you've just shown me the next lens I'm buying.

I've got a 28-70/2.8 atm, but for some of the fairly dark sports photography I do, it's just not bright enough. I think this would be a fantastic lens for me.
02/05/2004 02:48:28 PM · #14
Originally posted by PaulMdx:


Thanks Kev - you've just shown me the next lens I'm buying.

I've got a 28-70/2.8 atm, but for some of the fairly dark sports photography I do, it's just not bright enough. I think this would be a fantastic lens for me.

Nah, the 1.8 only gets you 1 1/3rd of a stop more light. If you wanna get the same lens that a lot of pro photographers use, you need the 85mm/1.2L. It is only a little bit more money (laugh), but you get another full stop over the 1.8, and 2 1/3rd stops over shooting your 2.8 wide open... an awesome low-light sports photography lens (unless you can find and afford a discontinued 200/1.8L, which really was the ultimate low-light sports lens. The thing was unbelievably sharp (4.8 score on photodo!) even wide-open and physically huge... 6.6 pounds with like a 120mm front element. To see some basketball shots taken with it, click here -- they were shot with a 1D, the 200mm/1.8 wide open at 1.8 ([homer]oooh... blurry backgrounds[/homer]) ISO 800 and 1/400th second in available light.)

Message edited by author 2004-02-05 14:59:56.
02/05/2004 02:54:07 PM · #15
Originally posted by EddyG:

Nah, the 1.8 only gets you 1 1/3rd of a stop more light. If you wanna get the same lens that a lot of pro photographers use, you need the 85mm/1.2L. It is only a little bit more money (laugh), but you get another full stop over the 1.8, and 2 1/3rd stops over shooting your 2.8 wide open...

You know, it'd be funny if I hadn't considered it already.. :-))) Money-wise though (and considering I shoot a fair amount outdoors), I don't think I could justify it. I think the 85/1.8 fits exceptionally well into what I need. I could maybe run to a 1.4, if anyone does them.

Originally posted by EddyG:

an awesome low-light sports photography lens (unless you can find and afford a discontinued 200/1.8L, which really was the ultimate low-light sports lens. The thing was unbelievably sharp and physically huge... 6.6 pounds with 125mm filters. To see some basketball shots taken with it, click here -- they were shot with a 1D, the 200mm/1.8 wide open at 1.8 ([homer]oooh... blurry backgrounds[/homer]) ISO 800 and 1/400th second in available light.)

Yep, I think 'awesome' is a fair description.. As you say though - an absolute monster of a lens. :-) Nice shots too.
02/05/2004 03:58:47 PM · #16
I have a 28 2.8, 50 1.4 and 70-200 F4L already, so I'd be getting:

17-40 F4L, 300 F4L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter. That'd bring me pretty close to the numbers. I'd throw in a 28-105 3.5-4.5 for a general travel/walkaround lens as well if I had some extra cash. I agree with John, though...get what you want for your needs.

James.
02/05/2004 05:35:29 PM · #17
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Let your needs dictate what you buy. What do you need?


I know what I need. Pretend I gave you $2300 and you had to spend it only on photo equipment, what would YOU buy? That was the point of this thread. Just for fun.

Message edited by author 2004-02-05 17:35:47.
02/06/2004 04:58:20 PM · #18
Oh right. Sorry, then I'd buy this
//www.xpan.com/
02/06/2004 05:40:17 PM · #19
Why is this one 80-200 f 2.8 so cheap?
02/06/2004 07:19:31 PM · #20
Assuming that I had a DSLR already, I'd buy a decent set of studio strobes. maybe a background or 2
02/16/2004 12:39:09 PM · #21
Well I didn't want to blow my entire tax refund so I settled on one lens. I got the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, I also just got a UV filter for protection and I also got the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter. Got it all from Adorama, a little than at B&H.
02/16/2004 12:58:46 PM · #22
Originally posted by jimmyn4:

Well I didn't want to blow my entire tax refund so I settled on one lens. I got the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, I also just got a UV filter for protection and I also got the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter. Got it all from Adorama, a little than at B&H.

With that lens you can go 2X !
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 04:49:10 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 04:49:10 PM EDT.