What should i do with $500? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/20/2005 01:18:47 AM · #1

My wife has generously alotted me $500 to spend on my 'hobby'.

Lens thoughts...
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF $439
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG for $359
Tokina Zoom W/A-Telephoto 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro-SV AF $219 after rebate
Tokina Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X $469 after rebate
Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX $499

I have a tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6 - not L glass, but it suffices. I have a good flash and LS2, and a 50 1.8. I don't have the 18-55 kit lens, so i have nothing remotely wide... I recently got a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO Super Macro II - i like the color/contrast on it much better than the Tamron 28-80, but how to pick another lens with that 'look' to it I have no idea.

I want to get into wedding photography and have one to shoot for my portfolio in August, so i am leaning toward something for that maybe...my computer can always use a DVD burner, more ram, a new video card or monitor...too many hobbies competing for too little cash!

I have a tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6, a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO Super Macro II, a Canon 50mm 1.8, a Metx 54 MZ4 flash.

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 01:19:59.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

05/20/2005 01:22:21 AM · #2

If you want wide, how about the Tokina 12-24 or waiting a bit for the Sigma 10-20. Both are around $500.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

05/20/2005 01:26:53 AM · #3

A nice wide angle lens will serve you well at weddings, I believe. One of the wedding photogs can chime in, but our bar mitzvah photog used a Canon 15mm lens on his 1.3x crop factor camera, and they came out fabulous. He used it well to capture the close in "group" dancing, and shots of the table decorations, the chair lifting groups, etc. There's distortion but the shots work.

Edit: I've uploaded a couple of examples I particularly liked:

(Note: these are straight out of the camera; he didn't do any editing, and all I did was reduce.)

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 01:35:06.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

05/20/2005 01:34:21 AM · #4

I have the Tokina 12-24 and I think it may be a bit too wide for wedding shots. Have you thought about the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4? It's wide enough, I think, and faster than the Tokina at the wide end and is reportedly very sharp and contrasty at all range in the center and in the corner according to popular photography.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

05/20/2005 01:37:44 AM · #5

It looks to me like you've been thinking it through pretty thoroughly, so there isn't anything I can come up with that you don't already know. But it's a nice problem to have :-)

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

05/20/2005 01:41:21 AM · #6

Originally posted by yido:

Canon's 17-40 or earlier 16-35 are very popular with wedding photogs, but not in my price range.

I am torn...go with a wider lens to add to my capabilities overall, or go for a better lens (the Tokina 28-80 for $469 gets really good reviews). I'll have to check into the Tamron 17-35.

What we need is a 10-40 or 12-36 f4 lens for $300!

mpemberton

05/20/2005 01:43:13 AM · #7

2x or 1.4x extender, or what ever they are called.

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 01:43:25.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

05/20/2005 02:00:09 AM · #8

sorry duplicate

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 02:01:34.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

05/20/2005 02:00:18 AM · #9

Check the popular photography site. You can see their evaluations of the 17-40L, 16-35L and the Tamron 17-35. Bob Atkins has reviewed the Tamron as well. I think the difference between the 17-40L and the Tamron is so small, most won't see any difference in sharpness. It is a great bargain for less than five hundred. If I didn't have a kit lens, that's what I'd get, since I've a 28-135 for walking around. Hey wanna buy my kit lens?
The Tokina is a good lens as well, but since it's very wide, it distors things (barrelshape). It is certainly sharp enough, thoug I find the color cooler than the Canon and Sigma lenses that I have. Plus due to it's wide angle coverage, there is noticible CA as well. I don't mind it, but I don't use it for paid work as a wedding photog either.
If you are interested in 28-75 range, once again I'd recommend the Tamron XR Di as well over the Tokina, it is fast at f2.8, and gets really good reviews. According to tests by Bob Atkins, it is sharper than the Canon 28-135 IS. If I didn't have the IS, I'd get this lens as well. Hey wanna buy a Canon 28-135IS?

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 02:09:36.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/20/2005 02:12:31 AM · #10

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and Sigma 24-60 f2.8,also Tokina 12-24 f4

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

05/20/2005 02:15:22 AM · #11

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

My wife has generously alotted me $500 to spend on my 'hobby'.

Fly to Iceland or Bangkok , take some pictures, and win a ribbon :P

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/20/2005 03:46:08 AM · #12

I love my Sigma 12-24mm...
in this day and age where everyone and their dogs consider themselves amazing photographers, especially at weddings, it's great to have a lens that sets you apart from the crowd. I think it's quite important to be able to provide shots that no-one else at the wedding will be able to capture.

CorySmith

05/20/2005 06:48:59 AM · #13

save it and buy some L glass later

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/20/2005 07:31:37 AM · #14

are prime lenses out of the question? they're cheaper and have better image quality than every lens you've listed.

20mm 2.8 (or sigma's 20mm 1.8)
24mm 2.8
28mm 2.8
35mm 2.0 (great low light)
85mm 1.8 (great low light med telephoto)

superdave_909

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/20/2005 07:37:45 AM · #15

I recently purchased the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 macro edition.
The original had marginal optics (non-macro edition)
but the new one is great, very sharp!

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/20/2005 07:58:34 AM · #16

In my opinion I would send me a cheque for the $500 and wil gladly spend it for you. I will also include a picture of whatever I decide to do with the money.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/20/2005 09:12:59 AM · #17

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by yido:
.... Have you thought about the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4? It's wide enough, I think, and faster than the Tokina at the wide end and is reportedly very sharp and contrasty at all range in the center and in the corner according to popular photography.

...

I'll have to check into the Tamron 17-35.

...

I don't think you would be unhappy with Tamron SP AF 17-35mm 2.8-4, I got it for @ 400 less than the canon 17-40L and it is one sharp lens, and a quality build.

Nuno

Nikon D700

05/20/2005 09:26:43 AM · #18

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

My wife has generously alotted me $500 to spend on my 'hobby'.

Good to have a wife like this :)

And How about a Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro? You can use it for portraits, for macro and general use in low light.

If you use a lot of flash the f2.8 is not very important, in all the lens you've posted. unless you need extreme dof control. For example in weddings I'm planning to use my 17-80mm f3.5-4-5 for general use, witch means inside with flash, outside, portraits, etc., and for inside church withought flash (to capture the mood of the scene - the flash jus't isn't the best way) I use the Nikkor 50mm f1.8. But for more versatility and because of sensor crop I'm planning to buy a 24mm f2.8.

It's you call here and your necesseties.

P.S.: And yes, a fisheye is in the "next to buy" list, if you can spend almous that money in a lens to use just once in a while. I love the sigma 15mm or 8mm fisheye.

05/20/2005 09:49:22 AM · #19

You all bring up good points...if i had some of these to try out that might make the decision for me!

the 105 macro - on the list, but long term.
the 12-24 as a wide lens - give me versatility i lack now, and as BobsterLobster says, give me a unique perspective.
the 17-35 - since about 80% of wedding photogs swear that a lens in this range is their most used, it is certainly running at the head of the pack. just does not excite me...is 17 gonna be wide enough? As in enough wider than 28 to make that much of a difference? I don't have the kit lens to compare to - i'll have to meet up with someone and try their lens.
primes - i have nothing against them - I love zooms though. And the wide primes are bloody expensive, and is 20mm wide enough compared to 28 to make a difference?

A good 28-80 is on the long list. If i book weddings that money can fund some of the items (well, ok, ALL of the items) on my wants list. Of course with this as my walkaround lens, a faster/better one would be the most used, so give the most benefit...

So with your help, I have narrowed it down I think -

Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX $499
or
Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF $449 after rebate.

Any one got these, have sample shots?

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 10:03:32.

05/20/2005 10:03:06 AM · #20

I have the Tamron 17-35, which I bought last fall and I've wondered how I've lived without it since then. I'd definitely go for this one first (you'll be amazed at the difference between 17mm and the 28mm you're used to), and save the 12-24 for later.

05/20/2005 10:05:39 AM · #21

Originally posted by alansfreed:

got a sample of 17 and 28? (just a shot of a room...)
I think I am leaning toward this one. Not as exciting as a 12-24, not as walkaround as a 28-80, but the 'practical' choice.

colda

Nikon D800

05/20/2005 10:19:37 AM · #22

I'm no expert on weddings but after having my first taste last week I found myself crying out for something like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 although I did use my 18-70 @18mm a fair bit, most of what I took was with my 50mm (sometimes with the TCON-17 attached, 85mm).

If I do any more weddings then the 28-75 will be my next purchase followed by the Sigma 10-20 (or maybe the Tamron 11-18)

Between the 12-24 and the 17-35 I think that it's a case of deciding between having more control of available focal lengths or more control of dof, in the case of wedding photography I think you need the functionality of f2.8, I know that my 28-200 was useless for the wedding that I shot as the feel of the images was just wrong (and that's from looking at the LCD preview)

05/20/2005 10:21:40 AM · #23

Here are a couple from earlier this week. I had to come up with an "architecture portfolio" for a prospective client, and I had three hours to do it... so I whipped through the area and shot a few buildings with this lens.

I literally keep this lens on the camera 99% of the time now. It's just awesome.

05/20/2005 10:23:00 AM · #24

Ah... I see I missed the point entirely with your request for samples... I'll go shoot a room at those focal lengths :)