| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2007 09:34:19 PM · #1 |
OK, here we go.
I'm coming to America in May (based around Los Angeles CA but travelling to Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, Yosemite, San Franciso on a tour) and prices over there are really cheap compared to Australia (even with the conversion). Checked with Canon Australia and lenses and speedlites are covered by an international warranty (not Grey copies though only USA), so I don't have to worry about that.
Just got to check about getting back into Australia with it all.
Now I've gotten really excited as I wish to update my bag to be all an amateur needs for some time. Won't get these prices again so got to go for it now (husband gave the OK)
My current equipment is as follows:
Lenses:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (keeping)
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC for Canon (handy range might hold for a bit)
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II (will sell)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (will consider selling)
I like sharp pictures.
The Sigma is not a sharp lense.
The 75-300 is not very good (used it on the weekend - slow focusing, soft pictures).
17-85 has never been given any rave reviews
I like shooting a bit of everything but don't want to go over 300mm.
Which combination of the following lenses would you purchase. I have added prices as this is relative.
WIDE
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $690.00
Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX $489.00
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM $471.00
I have read reviews, reviews and more reviews. Is that canon that much better for the price? Tokina is supposedly built excellenty and is a constant 4f.
MID RANGE
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM $995.00
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM $1,065.00
Reviews seem great on both of these. Which would be your preference as price is not that much different. I was leaning towards the 24-105 for the extra length as a carry around but the f2.8 of the other is tempting and I can't have both.
TELEPHOTO
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM $549.00
Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM $820.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM $588.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1,060.00
Another difficult decision. I like the first one on this list as its light and has good reviews (good sharpness all round has some special lens in it. Potozone infers close to L picture quality)
Also looking at purchasing the following:
Canon 430EX Speedlite $252.00
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM $470.00
Final question. What bag would you purchase to tote this around in?
Your input is greatly appreciated and will help me make a final decision. Thanks so much for your time.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:43:55 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 10:03:33 PM · #3 |
Mail the boxes home or turf them - less likely to be picked up the tax people on the way back in - obviously not fool proof :-)
- I agonised over the Canon 10-22 & Tokina 12-24. I personally still prefer the feel & obviously price of the Tokina but finally went with the wider Canon (I hate EF-S mounts so it was a tought call for me). I cannot understate the difference between 10mm and 12mm. If you can swing the extra cost, I would not go past the Canon (it's also lighter which is nice sometimes).
- Your mid choices are the classic - f4 with IS vs. f2.8. I would go with the 24-105 personally but I prefer primes recently, so take that for what it's worth :-).
- I have the 70-200Lf4 non-IS and all I can say is buy it - or the same with IS if you can cover the extra price. Seriously, it's just an amazing lens and I hear the IS version is at least as good.
- I went for the 580 over the 430 but not I think the 430 would be fine also.
- As for bags, I have no clue - I have several and none of them are "the bag". I am still on the lookout :-/
I am on the east coast but I think I heard Sammy's name for camera stuff - maybe someone on the other side can help you with somewhere local. Have fun, sounds like a cool trip.... oh.... and take a picture or two will you :-)) |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 11:09:31 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by robs:
Mail the boxes home or turf them - less likely to be picked up the tax people on the way back in - obviously not fool proof :-) |
Yes indeed... come to America to purchase lenses that are substantially cheaper than they are in OZ, then take the chance of having them confiscated by the Customs Officials for failure to declare them.... Great advise that.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 11:16:32 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Great advise that. |
Just a joke on her comment about getting it back - see the ":-)" :-) |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 11:28:17 PM · #6 |
My thoughts:
Ditch everything but the 50mm f/1.8.
Wide: Ideally, the Canon 10-22mm but if you want to save some money go with the Tokina. The only disadvantage to all of these lenses is that they are not compatible with full frame cameras so if that's in your future, look elsewhere.
Midrange: Both of those choices are good, also look into the Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 ($350ish) or the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1100ish). If you want something wider, look into the Canon 17-40mm f/4L ($700ish). All of these are excellent lenses, just a matter of what exactly you want to do.
Telephoto: I've heard nothing but good stuff about the 70-200 f/4L, but if you want to spend $1000 or so consider the 70-200 f/2.8L as well. You lose the IS function, but you gain an extra stop of speed that can be very valueable. Remember, IS can give you the ability to hand hold longer shutter speeds but will not enable you to stop motion like the f/2.8 can.
As far as the 100mm macro goes, go for it. I have nothing bad to say about that lens, used it many times and I want one of my own. There are other off brand alternatives (Sigma 105mm EX macro, etc...) but that's the best for its range. If you want the 430EX flash, you should also look into the Sigma EF500 DG Super (not the ST). It's cheaper than the 430EX ($200) and has many of the features that the 580EX has (wireless master, strobe ability, etc.) not to mention it's cheaper. I personally have one of these and I love it.
For bags...I have no idea. Check here for some good info. I have the Lowepro Nova 4 AW, but that won't be even close to big enough for all this stuff. If you don't already have a sturdy tripod, I would also suggest one of these as well.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 11:34:36 PM · #7 |
OK, in LA, it's Samy's Camera or Calumet has a store too.
As for your lens choices, I'd go with the following:
Canon 10-22, Canon 17-55 and the 70-200 f4L IS.
I'd skip the 430 and either get the 580 or the Sigma equivalent. You'll miss the extra power at some point.
As for the bag, I'd look into the Lowe Stealth Reporter bags, I have the 200 and it will easily hold all of that. You might consider getting the deluxe waistbelt too if you'll be doing a lot of walking.
As for getting it home without paying duty, well I'm not one to give advice on smuggling, but I can say that no one in customs has ever bothered checking my camera bag to see where I purchased my gear when I've traveled internationally.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 11:36:28 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Wide: Ideally, the Canon 10-22mm but if you want to save some money go with the Tokina. The only disadvantage to all of these lenses is that they are not compatible with full frame cameras so if that's in your future, look elsewhere.
|
The only full frame lens in that range is the Sigma 12-24, which is not on the list.
Message edited by author 2007-04-15 23:36:40. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 11:37:15 PM · #9 |
Tamron makes great glass!! I've many for my old 35mm, but can't bring myself to have them converted for my digital and can't afford to get new for the digital, lol.Have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO EX DG Macro and love it. my 2¢
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 11:46:46 PM · #10 |
| The 24-105 f/4L lens could likely be the centerpiece for 95% of amateur Canon photos. Buy that lens and merely fill in around it. First would be something wider since the crop sensor limits the wide end. You list good lenses and have had good advice from others. You can then go for a telephoto. the 70-200 is a great lens despite it's f/4. |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 12:01:53 AM · #11 |
Maria
I don't think you will have a problem with customs (coming back into Aus) as long as the gear is unpacked and for personal use. Check on this but I'm fairly sure this is how it works.
I think they are more concerned about it being boxed and possibly resold - therefore they want their taxes.
Personal gear - for your own camera - not a problem.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 12:49:12 AM · #12 |
I can not comment on most of the lenses but I was recently (over a 3 month span) looking for a long lens and ended up buying the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS and LOVE IT. In all fairness before buying I did rent that one and the 70-200 F4L and found both lenses to be awesome but the longer reach of the 70-300 and the IS sold me on that one. I could have bought the 70-200 F4L IS but it was double the price of the 70-300 with IS and I just could not justify it. Most of my portfolio is made up of the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS now and prob 99% are shot hand held, and below is a full frame and a 100% crop of the same shot if you want to have a look see.
-dave
 full frame, shot at 235mm handheld
 100% crop
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 01:28:55 AM · #13 |
| canon 10-22, definitly teh 17-55mm(super super sharp) the only other mid range zoom from canon id recommend other than that is hte 24-70mm, and id definitly go for the Sigma 70-200mm/2.8, or the canon 70-200mm/2.8 which you did not list |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 03:19:54 AM · #14 |
| Thanks for the thoughts so far. |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 05:25:10 AM · #15 |
I'm in a similar position with my lens collection. I already own the 17-55 and am wondering what to fill out the range with. I think you have an excellent shortlist and I don't think you'll go too far wrong getting any combination of the lenses you list.
I think the wide and mid-range options should be considered together. If you take the 17-55 then it will take care of a lot of your wide angle shots and you will only need a wide lens for the extremes. In that case I would suggest the Sigma - you save $200 back you can use elsewhere. People rave about the Tokina but if you have the 17-55 the Sigma has a wider useful range.
On the other hand, if you go for the 24-105L then you will be relying on your wide lens to take pretty much all your wide angle shots (24mm isn't really "wide" on a crop sensor). This means there is more of a case for spending more on the wide lens which makes the Canon a better option IMO. Of course this also means you will need to lens swap more if you are taking a lot of photos in the 17-30mm range, where the 17-55 can just sit on the camera. I would think carefully about how much of a problem this is for your shooting style.
The telephoto end is an independent decision since they all start at 70mm. I personally am now leaning towards the 70-200 f/4L IS due to its stellar image quality reputation. I would probably narrow your choices to the two IS options - it's just so useful on a lens in this range. The 70-200 f/4L without IS should have better IQ than the 70-300 IS - but then it will probably miss opportunities altogether that the 70-300 will catch due to IS. The 70-300 IS apparently offers excellent image quality for a consumer lens, but then the 70-200 offers excellent image quality for an L lens :).
So these are my suggestions, but it really is down to you and how you use your camera. Owning the 18-200 Sigma and the 75-300 Canon already you should have a reasonable idea of what you find most useful. If you find yourself switching from the Sigma to the Canon for the extra 100mm a lot of the time then this perhaps means you should consider the 70-300IS more carefully (which is supposed to be MUCH better IQ-wise than the 75-300) - but if 200mm is usually enough one of the 70-200s might be a better bet. If a lot of your long shots suffer from shake then IS will be a big help, if they don't then maybe it's less useful to you. If you find yourself at the wide end of the 18-200 a fair bit but rarely wish it was wider, perhaps the 17-55 will work for you, but if you often find the 18-200 restrictive at the wide end maybe you will get more use out of your wide lens and should consider the 10-22, etc. As I said at the start all the lenses you've listed are good and you should see a noticeable improvement over your current lenses.
splidge
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 07:53:59 AM · #16 |
| Thanks a lot for your comments. :) |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 08:18:44 AM · #17 |
Here's how I'd do it:
Wide: Tokina 12-24. I just went through this and ended up with the Tokina, and have never regretted it. It's built like a tank, rock solid, and it's the sharpest lens I've ever owned/used.
Standard: Canon 17-55 F/2.8 The other option you have listed is a full stop slower, which just won't cut it sometimes. Better to get the fastest lenses you can, and then know that you're always covered.
Telephoto: Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 I'm aiming to get this one myself, soon. It's got good reviews, and is quite a savings over the Canon models you have posted. And again, it's a full stop faster than the Canon F/4s, and my feeling is that for a lot of things, F/4 just doesn't cut it - you'll end up wanting the extra performance that F/2.8 offers. I know the Sigma isn't "L" glass, but in all honesty, I'm not convinced that the difference (if it exists) is so large that it's worth the extra hundreds of dollars.
And as someone posted early on, I'd sell all your current lenses except the 50mm. Hang on to it for a while, as it is a good little lens. And good luck with your new gear!
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 09:11:28 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by RamblinR:
OK, here we go.
WIDE
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $690.00
Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX $489.00
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM $471.00
|
Canon is great and the tokina is very good. The canon is a bit wider at 10mm, heavier, faster focusing. hard choice...I went with the canon cause i had the extra money at the time but I've used the Tokina and it's very nice. Skip the sigma.
Originally posted by RamblinR:
MID RANGE
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM $995.00
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM $1,065.00
|
There is no perfect lens...if you keep the 18-200 then you have a walkaround lens, so go for the the 17-55 - you can handhold this sucker at 1/6 of a second -it's an amazing lens. If you shoot indoors a lot get teh 17-55 as the diff between 17 and 24 is most noticeable there, and it's a stop faster. If you do a lot of outdoors with the kids or studio work then the 24-105 may be the better choice. I have the tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 ($400 or so) and it's an extremely sharp lens that I use in the studio and as a walkaround lens outdoors. It gets outstanding reviews.
Originally posted by RamblinR:
TELEPHOTO
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM $549.00
Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM $820.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM $588.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1,060.00
|
Look at the canon 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) - it's a bit heavier than the F4 version, but that means it's easier to hold steady. I personlly don't see the point of the F4 IS version. You can get a 1.4x TC (even tamron's) for the extra reach if you need it. I never missed the reach when I moved from 300 to a 200 lens. Tokina has a 50-135 2.8 for $800ish that has gotten very good reviews - you could get it AND the 70-300 IS for about the price of the 70-200 F4 IS alone.
Originally posted by RamblinR:
Canon 430EX Speedlite $252.00
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM $470.00
|
The canon 580EX2 is a LOT better and has a LOT more features than the 430. Give it some serious thought. Also if budget is a concern at this point, the sigma EF500DG super is a great flash a good price.
[/quote]
Bags...soooo many choices and this mix of bits is gonna be heavy. I have a lowepro bag I got for $75 (mini trekker classic I think)or so that holds: body, 70-200, 10-22, 24-135, 28-75, 17-55, flash and the mix of cables, batteries, reflectors, etc. It's a backpack and it's too damned heavy to carry all. The Trekker AW with the laptop space is a very popular bag as well if you need to carry a laptop all the time.
I'd almost recomend a bag with wheels that would be carry-on compatible as a better choice.
Recomendations
If I had the money...
canon 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 2.8, 580EX2 and skip the macro lens (easy to find used)
Budget option tokina 12-24, canon 17-55, sigma EF500DG super. The long lens is the tough one. A 70-200 2.8 is a magic lens great for SOOO many things (sports, weddings, portraits). The tokina 50-135 is the 1/6 crop version of the 70-200 and should be lighter so I'd check it out in person if possible. If you're not getting a canon lens, then this over the sigma would be my choice. The F4 canon lenses are great lenses, but like I said, the 2.8 is magical.
As for the 50 1.8...it's good for what it costs, but once you get to using the 10-22, 17-55 and 70-200 you'll see the 50 1/8 for what it is - a $70 lens.
Enjoy your trip and new gear!
|
|
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: 01/01/2026 03:18:04 PM EST.
