| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2005 08:43:59 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by TLL061:
16-35 2.8 L 24-70 2.8 L canon 100 2.8 |
another great option! |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 08:58:19 PM · #27 |
| A 50% down payment on A Nikon 200-400 VR F4 |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:48:10 PM · #28 |
How about telling us what kind of photography you do?
If it's shooting wildlife then a longer zoom would be more appropriate. If you do mostly portraits and wide angle then something like a 16-35 or a 24-70 will be more appropriate. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:54:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by psychephylax:
How about telling us what kind of photography you do?
If it's shooting wildlife then a longer zoom would be more appropriate. If you do mostly portraits and wide angle then something like a 16-35 or a 24-70 will be more appropriate. |
Looks like he's a jack of all trades if you judge from the portfolio :o)
Frankly, I think the glass you have is adequate (If not the best out there), I'd save the $2500, and wait till you could afford the Canon 5d, or until the price comes down.
Message edited by author 2005-12-23 21:54:51.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 10:07:22 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
100mm macro - $400
70-200L IS - $1500
17-40L F4 - $580
50mm 1.8 - $70 |
Ditto |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 11:40:59 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by psychephylax:
How about telling us what kind of photography you do?
If it's shooting wildlife then a longer zoom would be more appropriate. If you do mostly portraits and wide angle then something like a 16-35 or a 24-70 will be more appropriate. |
Looks like he's a jack of all trades if you judge from the portfolio :o)
Frankly, I think the glass you have is adequate (If not the best out there), I'd save the $2500, and wait till you could afford the Canon 5d, or until the price comes down. |
I'm one of those guys with the philosophy of "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
I take all kinds of photos and try not to limit myself to one type. Limiting myself to certain types of photos IMO would make it more like work and less like fun.
I like kyebosh suggestions for lenses since these were pretty much my choice before asking for suggestions. With the exception of the Sigma macro. That could be a possibility. I would also like the 100-400mm.
As far as the 5d goes, I'd love to save the money for one.I think by the time they drop to $2500 I'll have another $2500 to spend on something else.
I sorta did give to charity and made monet doing it. I donate plasma twice a week for $200/month. it's only a couple hours two days per week and it benefits a lot of people and myself at the same time.
Thanks for all of the suggestions guys and Happy Holidays.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:23:49 AM · #32 |
I'm amazed nobody's suggested a super-wide. The Canon 10-22mm, for example. This is something you don't have covered, and it will expand the way you see dramatically. Personally, I prefer the Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro to the others listed. Both of these lenses, however, are EF-S lenses, so they can't make the transition to a full-frame body if you ever go in that direction. I don't plan to, so not a problem for me.
R. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:29:39 AM · #33 |
oops.
posting as my wife again.
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 01:30:04.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:51:45 AM · #34 |
Yeah, bear, that would be my idea too. I'm considering the following list:
Canon 70-200 2.8L (non-is) 1100
Tamron 28-75 2.8 360
50mm 1.8 70
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro 500
Canon 10-22 OR Sigma 400 (this is last for me because I am guessing the original 18-55 will cover me for a while as I don't shoot a lot of wide-angle stuff yet - I shoot mostly 50mm-150mm focal length type shots and some macro. Can't speak for others)
Buying second-hand might free up some cash for a set of ND filters, a nice polarizer or two and help me to start thinking about upgrading my goofy flash/tripod combo.
Another option might be that 120-300 2.8 and a 24-135, but I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 04:45:53 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Tamron 28-75 2.8 360
(this is last for me because I am guessing the original 18-55 will cover me for a while) |
Good choices except for the tamron (only because I'm not fond of that company) I'd suggest the 24-70L 2.8 instead. The 18-55 kit lense is very crappy and you will not be happy with it. When you coming back to Canada??? I'll let you see the difference on my camera.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 05:56:25 AM · #36 |
Notonline. Not planning on returning this year, maybe next year. Maybe not. Money money money.
I like the price of the Tamron over the Canon 24-70L. I'll take my chances.
The 18-55 is not great, but hey, have you seen my pictures? I'm hardly of a caliber where the quality of an 18-55 is a serious issue for me. Plus, the fact that I shoot mostly 50-150mm type shots and I really need to learn how to be better at those means my priority for super-wide is fairly low. Therefore, the 18-55 has a place in my list as a standby until I start shooting wider.
Although, I would love to meet ya and check out your camera. Thanks for the offer.
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 05:57:44. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 08:37:46 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
which 3 lenses would you buy. I want 2 "L" lenses and a macro. |
Dave,
I am going to lay aside your thoughts about 2 "L"s and just tell you what I would if I had $2500 for lenses:)
Canon 70-300 IS $550
Sigma 10-20 f4.0-5.6 $450
Sigma 105 macro $350
Tamron 28-75 $350
Tamron 1.4x or 2.0x converter $180
Add in some filters and maybe a backpack to haul all this stuff and you will hit in the $2000-$2500 range. I know, pros us "L" lenses, but you can get some great shots from these other lenses.
Also, I would then put up your other lenses for sale on e-bay or somewhere, except the 50mm f1.8.
Just my 2 cents:)
Good luck, whatever you decide. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 09:57:07 AM · #38 |
2 L lenses.. for studiowork... and a macro
the 24-70L f2.8 $1150
the 70-200L f2.8 $1140
the 50mm macro $ 230
total amount $2520
with the 24-70 and the 70-200 you have the covered the whole range you need for studiowork, a wider lens is very rarely used in a studio, and a longer one is only useable in a very large studio due to minimum focus distance, and the 50mm macro f2.5 is the only macro lens I found in the $200 range
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 10:28:05 AM · #39 |
Canon 100mm macro - i kow the others are good, but i have seen some outstanding images from this lens. It'll last you a lifetime. $469 ($20 rebate)
Canon 70-200 2.8L (NON IS) $1139 (rebate!! save $100-200)
and a 1.4x TC (any..kenko pro 300 or tamron 1.4 either SP or regular) $200
tamron 24-135 SP 3.5-5.6 $400
Cnaon 17-40 4L $679 (REBATE! $25 )
(get one rebate, get one. get two and they both double, get 3 and they all triple)
Total: $2887 less rebates of $435 = $2452
The balance can go toward shipping.
This gives you the 2 L lenses you wanted, a macro, wide and fast on both ends a fantastic walkaround and portrait lens (the tamron) and TC for the 70-200 so you keep the 300mm range you have now.
All this glass works on full frame cameras so if you upgrade in teh future to a 5D etc you'll be fine.
All you need now are a Sigma 12-24 (fits full frame) or Tokina 12-24 (best/least costly) or canon 10-22 and some long wildlife lens that'll cost you a more than all these other lenses ;)
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 10:29:01.
|
|
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: 09/21/2025 07:10:37 PM EDT.
