if you were to buy one thing....

10/21/2009 11:50:23 AM · #1

so im sorta stumped as to what i should look into upgrading next... my current gear consists of:
canon XSI
canon 50mm 1.4
canon 28-135 IS
canon 10-22mm
2 speedlites w/ stands syncs and umbrellas
3021 legs with a 3030 head (manfrotto)

some of the things i was looking into are:
canon 28-70 L
tamron 28-75
canon 70-200 f4 L
canon 200 2.8 L
canon 135 2 L
460mg manfrotto head (the 3030 is VERY bulky)
40D body
monolights?

what are your thoughts/suggestions?

also:
id like to be thinking about things <1000 USD
im not necessarily looking to buy anything in the immediate future
im starting to get more into portraiture as a primary photographic interest

as people far more experienced than i am, what are your thoughts? currently im leaning toward the 40D or one of the primes.

thanks :)

LadyK

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/21/2009 11:59:43 AM · #2

if you end up getting the 70-200, pleeeeese spend the extra money and get the f/2.8. its very much worth it, its a fantastic and very neccessarly lens(for me at least)

that tamron is a great lens too

BJokerud

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/21/2009 12:00:20 PM · #3

I would've gone for the 70-200, and buy it used. Think about candid portrais in the city or something like that. Tempting, eh?

Magnumphotography

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

10/21/2009 12:27:14 PM · #4

Don't rule out Cannon's 85mm f1.8. They are listed around a msrp of $600 ish. I bought this lens probably 4 years ago and would be lost without it. It's just such a great portrait lens, fast, affordable, small, nice bohken and sharp. Although, I am using it on a full frame sensor. So may be a little different on your xsi. Mount one up, next time your in a store. Just so you don't miss something, possibly great and affordable.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/21/2009 01:37:51 PM · #5

For portraiture out of that selection I would go for the 24-70L, I have this lens and its soooo nice to shoot with on a cropped body and great for full length and bust portraits.

-dave

BJokerud

Nikon D3s

10/21/2009 01:48:22 PM · #6

I wouldn't gone from the 450D to 40D had I shot with Canon. I don't think the difference is that big and I have tried both. you will also loose 2.3 MP if I remember correctly.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/21/2009 02:06:30 PM · #7

Originally posted by BJamy:

I wouldn't gone from the 450D to 40D had I shot with Canon. I don't think the difference is that big and I have tried both. you will also loose 2.3 MP if I remember correctly.

side by side compare of the 450D and 40D...

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

10/21/2009 02:11:54 PM · #8

can't speak for canon lenses specifically, but my 85mm 1.4 lens is superb, and my very favorite lens. I end up using my 24-70 2.8 a bit more because I am often switching between portraits, head shots, three-quarters, and full length in the studio, and the 85 means backing up a LOT for full length. But, if I am doing only portraits or headshots, the 85 is it. There really has to be a good reason not to use the 85 for me to take it off the camera.

A buddy of mine has the canon 85 1.2 and feels the same way about it.

I have heard that the 60mm or 105mm with macro lenses are good for portraits, plus you get a macro capability too. I have not used them, so can't say with any authority. But those might be worth investigating.

If you can use a prime for your portrait work, you will be very happy with the results.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/21/2009 02:29:29 PM · #9

24-70 L 2.8. Of course, that's what *I* would buy...but you're you, as far as I know.

10/21/2009 03:25:35 PM · #10

thanks so much for your input :):)

is there anyone who switched from a xti or xsi to a 40D that could give me some insight as to whether or not its worth it? i cant not think about the increased IQ, the big frame rate increase, the increased durability, the kelvin WB and the dual wheel...

also i have read that the 28-70 is just as sharp as the newer 24-70 ( and its cheaper) any words on this?

thanks ladyK for your thoughts on the 70-200 2.8 , that had sort of been in the back of my mind as well.

also regarding the 85mm, magnumphotography : i have a 50mm 1.4 now which is comparable to 80mm or so fullframe and i loove it :) if i were to go FF i would look into the 85-100+ range.

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM for Nikon

10/21/2009 03:31:51 PM · #11

I went from the XTi (which I still have) to a 40D and dont regret it in the least, well worth it IMO.

Im not sure on the IQ difference on the 28-70 to the 24-70 but here is a link to a review on the 28-70 and a review on the 24-70...

HarveyG

Nikon D800

10/21/2009 04:07:20 PM · #12

If your willing to spend about USD $650 on a Canon 70-200 f/4 I'd rather spend USD $149-00 more and go for the f/2.8:
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG APO (this lens works on full and small frame DSLR, remember the crop factor of your XSI is 1.6 (it has a 22.2 x 14.8mm CMOS sensor) which makes the lens effectively a 112-320mm). Sigma SRP USD $1200-00. B+H USD $799-00 with free shipping in the USA.
It's MFT chart (and price) is streaks ahead of the competition. Sadly Sigma have recently removed their MFT charts from their site.
Canon's equivalent Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens from B+H USD $1330-00 with free shipping...

For small frame (your XSI has a 22.2 x 14.8mm CMOS sensor) only I'd choose the:
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 APO DC. Sigma SRP USD $1150-00. B+H USD $749-00 with free shipping in the USA.

None of the above have 'Vibration Reduction' which with ISO 1600 and f/2.8 is less and less a worry these days until you go below 1/60th of a second SS. Even then a youngster like you should be steady at 1/30th. Slower shots will necessitate a mono or tripod. Add a couple of hundred dollars or more when seeking a VR or IS or OS lens.

There's a lot of good vibes for the Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus USD $420.00 from B+H but far more reports of slow focus and poor build quality on customer reviews when compared with the other above two brands reviews.

All of the above is academic unless you absolutely know what you will use the lens for and it complements what you have.
Choices, choices...

JamesA

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

10/21/2009 05:08:25 PM · #13

i have more or less the same setup as you + 40D

Tez

10/21/2009 05:22:14 PM · #14

get a longer zoom. The 70-200s are all great, the f4s are lighter and sharper, but the 2.8s are 2.8 :D

So you know, my 70-200 2.8 IS was $1250 used.

Message edited by author 2009-10-21 17:22:36.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

10/21/2009 06:04:46 PM · #15

Thanks David for the review links. only became aware of the 28-70 b/c of the spectacular things yuri arcurs had to say about it, and if a stock photographer says its sharp im gunna believe him ;).

also, Thanks tez b/c in reality thats what i would be trying to weigh ( no pun intended) when considering which 70-200 to get. i love the speed but at the same time ive heard so many people complain about the weight of the thing. also, is the f/4 noticeably/visually sharper or just sharper based off of the MTFs?

the sigma 50-150 would definitely be something to consider although two things i like about the canon 70-200s are: metal barrel and the bit more reach itd give me for the same price range. im also not psyched to have to potentially deal with getting a dud from sigma (does it happen as often as it seems?)

btw the only very low light shots im doing handheld are band/concert shots which i use my 50mm for or my 10-22 with a bounced flash, so although speed is nice on the teles its not absolutely essential. on the other hand i would prefer the speed on the 28-70 range lens.

also i just rememebered... thoughts on the canon 17-55mm?

once again thank you all so much for your help/input! i love this place b/c i knew that i could come here and ask a pretty vague brainstorming question and get dozens of enthusiastic and detailed responses. thank you all :)

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/21/2009 09:45:04 PM · #16

Originally posted by Magnum_za:

There's a lot of good vibes for the Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus USD $420.00 from B+H but far more reports of slow focus and poor build quality on customer reviews when compared with the other above two brands reviews.

I'm sorta bummed out about this lens. I love that it's fast, I love the range; it's perfect for so many different things, but that damn autofocus is infuriating. Mine typically gets almost focused and then does a series of really small, really slow "ticking" adjustments to finally gain focus. Forget about tracking anything that's moving at a reasonable clip, and that's using the D300's autofocus!

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

10/22/2009 01:02:36 AM · #17

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Magnum_za:

There's a lot of good vibes for the Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus USD $420.00 from B+H but far more reports of slow focus and poor build quality on customer reviews when compared with the other above two brands reviews.

I'm sorta bummed out about this lens. I love that it's fast, I love the range; it's perfect for so many different things, but that damn autofocus is infuriating. Mine typically gets almost focused and then does a series of really small, really slow "ticking" adjustments to finally gain focus. Forget about tracking anything that's moving at a reasonable clip, and that's using the D300's autofocus!

thanks alot for that insight. i hadnt given too much consideration to the autofocus speed in the tamron

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/22/2009 01:16:40 AM · #18

Originally posted by michaelmonn:

thanks alot for that insight. i hadnt given too much consideration to the autofocus speed in the tamron

Definitely ask some other folks too. There's a chance I got a bum one, and I love everything else about it. Ever since I got it I've been wondering if it's just faulty because of the way it behaves with the weird ticking (none of my other lenses have ever done that, but I also have never owned a Tamron... My Bigma kinda makes clunking sounds but focuses faster). Maybe you could try one out in person?

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 01:18:50.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

10/22/2009 07:32:46 AM · #19

=

Message edited by author 2009-11-13 23:46:14.

10/22/2009 10:41:51 AM · #20

thanks for the suggestion nova. i had thought about that once or twice but for now i would just be looking at a crop body. i dont really have a need for the 5D and i JUST got my 10-22 and am not looking to make that switch over right now. thanks though. i did see DrAchoo's 5D the other day on the buy/sell and it did make me think for a minute haha. :)

delin

Canon EOS-40D

10/22/2009 11:08:17 AM · #21

I'm no technical wizard to help out, but I know when I switched from my Rebel XT to the 40D the larger viewfinder made it worth it alone. You can actually see what you're looking at. When
I look through the XT now I can hardly use it.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/22/2009 06:52:32 PM · #22

thanks :) little things like that are really what im looking for like the little things that really add up.

also: if this changes things... if i were to get a 40D i would probably sell my XSI which would make the cost of upgrading <150 bucks. is it worth the 150 or so? ( i know where i could get 500 for my XSI + accessories and it seems like i could get a good condition 40D on ebay for like 650 ish)

FrankRobinson

Canon EOS-50D

11/02/2009 11:38:56 AM · #23

Originally posted by michaelmonn:

also i just rememebered... thoughts on the canon 17-55mm?

Outstanding. So utterly crisp and clean it is remarkable. See the DP review or canon lens review takes on it.

It has hardly been off my 50D since I got it.

JEason

Fujifilm X10

11/02/2009 11:53:55 PM · #24

You have a perfectly adequate kit. How about taking some pictures? Spend the money on a workshop or trip that may actually improve your photography instead of a new piece of equipment.