$1000: new lens or back-up body?

12/07/2004 11:56:48 AM · #51

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

chances are this would be one of my primary lenses for situations where the focal length was acceptable.

*Bells and whistles go off when I read $129.95CND. Sounds cheap. But lots of people seem to recommend it! I've never used a fixed-length lens before. But I may invest.....thanks for the tips :-)

One more question, what about a lens with a bit more versatility...??

*EDIT: Was looking at the wrong model lens...the 1.4 is Your Price: $564.95 CND

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 11:59:52.

12/07/2004 12:06:09 PM · #52

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
chances are this would be one of my primary lenses for situations where the focal length was acceptable.

*Bells and whistles go off when I read $129.95CND. Sounds cheap. But lots of people seem to recommend it! I've never used a fixed-length lens before. But I may invest.....thanks for the tips :-)

One more question, what about a lens with a bit more versatility...??

*EDIT: Was looking at the wrong model lens...the 1.4 is Your Price: $564.95 CND

I suppose versatility means a zoom lens? If so, I still highly recommend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. Its not as fast as the 50mm f/1.4 obvoiusly, but there are no zoom lenses that I'm aware of that match the quality of the 24-70 and have a wider aperture.

12/07/2004 12:17:44 PM · #53

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I still highly recommend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8...there are no zoom lenses that I'm aware of that match the quality of the 24-70 and have a wider aperture.

But I've only got max $1000. That one is $2k CND at my local camera store. So many choices...so little money...lol

Edit: I'm considering the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM ... not as wide an aperture, but it's good glass and has the higher zoom i need sometimes. Don't know anyone who owns it though..

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 12:20:38.

12/07/2004 12:31:29 PM · #54

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Edit: I'm considering the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM ... not as wide an aperture, but it's good glass and has the higher zoom i need sometimes. Don't know anyone who owns it though..

It is good glass. It will let you down in low light situations.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

12/07/2004 12:33:16 PM · #55

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Edit: I'm considering the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM ... not as wide an aperture, but it's good glass and has the higher zoom i need sometimes. Don't know anyone who owns it though..

It is good glass. It will let you down in low light situations.

I've used the equivalent non-L glass lens in low light and it's VERY hard like you say. But that's what the 50mm would be good for. If I opt for the 70-200 F4, I can still probably afford the 50mm F1.4 with a bit of saving.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

12/07/2004 12:36:21 PM · #56

i use the sigma 24-70/2.8 EX. good quality for 1/3 the price of the canon version. only downside is that the focus isnt as quick - or quiet - as the canon.

but i thought you arent doing weddings anymore? In that case, why are we talking about them still? If you're into band photography, then we should be considering a wholly different set of possibilities.

85/1.8
100/2.0
135/2.0
200/2.8
70-200/2.8

Those lenses will all give you a bit more of the reach that you might need shooting concerts.

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 12:37:00.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

12/07/2004 12:38:08 PM · #57

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

but i thought you arent doing weddings anymore? In that case, why are we talking about them still?

Because I still have 6 more booked..and if I have some better gear that can translate over to weddings, than I'd consider booking more if it seemed like a good gig (ie. not too stressful with a bride-zilla). But ya, I'm "concentrating" on band gigs..so the list of lenses is helpful :-)

Edit: Maybe combine the cash and get one good low-light multi-purpose zoom.

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 12:39:47.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

12/07/2004 12:42:11 PM · #58

p.s. that list of lenses above are supersharp , and are also great low light performers in addition to having some 'length'.

crabappl3

12/07/2004 12:47:35 PM · #59

I fear that f4 wouldn't be fast enough in concert venues. You would probably be better off saving for a f/2.8 lens I would think.

All the images in this directory were taken with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

The Vanished Concert

-danny

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I still highly recommend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8...there are no zoom lenses that I'm aware of that match the quality of the 24-70 and have a wider aperture.

But I've only got max $1000. That one is $2k CND at my local camera store. So many choices...so little money...lol

Edit: I'm considering the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM ... not as wide an aperture, but it's good glass and has the higher zoom i need sometimes. Don't know anyone who owns it though..

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 12:49:01.

12/07/2004 12:50:01 PM · #60

Great stuff, and ya, I agree that it's probably the best choice of lenses. I just don't have that much money. Besides one or two good lenses, I also need a new flash (580EX) and a spare body. But I don't want to cheap out now and regret it later.

12/07/2004 12:54:42 PM · #61

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Save your money and buy a 550ex instead.

12/07/2004 12:58:02 PM · #62

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Save your money and buy a 550ex instead.

Why the 550 over the 580? Isn't newer usually better? The local cam store I deal with has the 580 for about $50 bucks cheaper than the 550....they said they get the new model for cheaper from the manufacturer than with the 550.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/07/2004 01:08:11 PM · #63

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Save your money and buy a 550ex instead.

Why the 550 over the 580? Isn't newer usually better? The local cam store I deal with has the 580 for about $50 bucks cheaper than the 550....they said they get the new model for cheaper from the manufacturer than with the 550.

If it's cheaper, then go for it. Here, its about $170 more than the 550.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/07/2004 01:09:34 PM · #64

Sigma makes a very good 70-200 f/2.8 for a lot less than the Canon version. It's not quite L glass, but it's at least a J. ;-)

12/07/2004 01:10:15 PM · #65

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

If it's cheaper, then go for it. Here, its about $170 more than the 550.

Ahhhh I thought you meant 'save your money' as in save-up and get the 550 instead. Now I understand...gotcha.

12/07/2004 01:11:06 PM · #66

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sigma makes a very good 70-200 f/2.8 for a lot less than the Canon version. It's not quite L glass, but it's at least a J. ;-)

Can anyone attest to this? That it's a good lens...I've heard very good/very bad stuff about sigma.

crabappl3

12/07/2004 01:13:30 PM · #67

While I don't have that Sigma lens, I do have the Sigma 50-500 and the Sigma 12-24. The 12-24 is a great lens would recommend it highly. On my D100 and D70 the 50-500 seems a bit low in the contrast department. I usually have to bump my contrast when shooting with that lens in order to get the same look as my Nikkor lenses. But for the range, it's a good lens.

-danny

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Sigma makes a very good 70-200 f/2.8 for a lot less than the Canon version. It's not quite L glass, but it's at least a J. ;-)

Can anyone attest to this? That it's a good lens...I've heard very good/very bad stuff about sigma.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/07/2004 01:15:35 PM · #68

Originally posted by crabappl3:

The sigma 70-200 is only $400 cheaper than the Canon L version. $400 might seem like a lot, but I think when you're talking high-end it's not that much of a leap.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

12/07/2004 01:28:08 PM · #69

I have the F4 version of the 70-200 and it's almost impossible to use inside without very good lighting or flash. That's not a very good choice for your application. I use it outside. Remember that the 1/focal length for shutter speed is the 35mm equivalent, so you need about 100-300/ths of a second minimum to handhold. On a 10D it's quite long.

Considering that a lot of your stuff will be shot inside I'd suggest going for a few prime focal length lenses. If you had a Sigma 20 1.8, a Canon 50 1.8 and a Canon 100 F2, for example, you'd be fairly well covered for low light photos and have good quality, bright glass. Don't make a direct correlation to image quality based on price between zoom lenses and prime lenses. Prime lenses are much cheaper, and usually brighter (wider aperture) than their zoom counterparts. The 50 1.4 vs the 24-70 2.8 is a great example of that.

Consider ordering from adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com or somewhere similar in the states. The prices here in camera stores are way over the top. With the strength of our dollar lately it'd be dumb not to order from the US. Those places also have a used section, where you can sometimes get good deals.

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Edit: I'm considering the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM ... not as wide an aperture, but it's good glass and has the higher zoom i need sometimes. Don't know anyone who owns it though..

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 13:28:45.

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

12/07/2004 01:36:26 PM · #70

Good suggestions JTF, I'm not partial to carrying tons of lenses or equipment..probably because I can't afford to buy it all. lol

Edit: re-read your post and took out some of my own post...I didn't read it thoroughly the first time apparently.

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 13:38:18.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

12/07/2004 01:42:47 PM · #71

I have 3 Sigma lenses 20-40mm f2.8 that would do a great job for what you need. I also have the 15-30mm f3.5 would be a bit slow maybe. and the APO 170-500 we wont talk about that though even if it is a good lens, I think Sigma is OK really and I have had good results with them.. I used to shoot bands(being a musician) and i used a Zeiss 50mm f1.4 amazing a must have size and appature. Do you not have any good secondhand shops out there? we have loads here in japan and you can find great deals on glass.. my Nikon Ai 85mm f.14 was a snip at $600USD and an AI 50mm f1.4s was $40 and had a free NIKOMAT FT attached in great condition.. I vote 2ndhand if you can get it.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/07/2004 01:45:29 PM · #72

Originally posted by alionic:

I vote 2ndhand if you can get it.

Actually, you're right, I bought my 28-105 lens second hand with filter and hood attached for $200CND. With very little use as far as I can tell. I should hit the camera store and check out their used section. Thanks, not sure why that didn't come to mind...

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

12/07/2004 01:47:54 PM · #73

I'd get an 85/1.8 or a 100/2 if you need a focal length in this range. $319 and $389 (US) respectively at adorama.com. Compare that to $584 and $704 (CDN) at The Camera Store here in Calgary. Even after duty, shipping and exchange you're ahead.

The general requirement for prime focal length lenses is double the focal length...that is, a 28, 50, 100, 200 and 400 would be a good theoretical distribution. YOu don't need much inbetween.

That said, the 50 1.8 is a given, so ask yourself if you'd get more use out of a 20-28 or an 85-100. I have a 28 2.8 that's very, very sharp that cost $200. It's a good substitute for my 17-40 when I want a very small setup.

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Good suggestions JTF, I'm not partial to carrying tons of lenses or equipment..probably because I can't afford to buy it all. lol

Thoughts on one good (for starters) low-light lens around the $1000 mark...or under?

Edit: other than the 50mm 1.8 which we've already established to be a good buy. I do need some zoom..

Alecia

Canon EOS-10D

12/07/2004 01:53:37 PM · #74

i have it, but i dont use it as often lately. in fact, my 17-40mm f4 L rarely seems to come off my camera these days. :) as far as concert photography goes, your best bet is something less than f4, i think. i would get the 50mm 1/8 or the 1/4. certainly the 70-200 f/2.8 would be something to work towards--and though you wont always need that much zoom--it will also do very nicely for your set-up shots.

it depends on the venue of course, but generally when you are shooting from the photo pit, you are close enough to the stage where the 70-200 is actually a hindrance. so i would recommend shooting with a 50mm or the 17-40 (which worked out well as far as distance went--especially when i was physically on the stage--but the lighting had to be really good--plus it is a tad wide angle, so at that distance, it put just the slighest bit of distortion on the subjects--enough to make for some interesting photography).

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Edit: I'm considering the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM ... not as wide an aperture, but it's good glass and has the higher zoom i need sometimes. Don't know anyone who owns it though..