Tax Refund!!! - DPChallenge Forums

04/15/2009 06:47:39 PM · #1

So I just found out that my wife and I are getting a healthy tax return. I have been given the green light on spending a portion of it on some new equipment. I am thinking of getting a 40D and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM along with the 2x teleconverter. I figure this will give me an extra body as well as some good glass to shoot with in low light situations. Anyone have any suggestions on this? How about any opinions on the 2x teleconverter? Thanks!!!

LadyK

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/15/2009 06:54:13 PM · #2

i have a 70-200 2.8 with a 2x extender. the glass is amazing, just keep in mind you cant get below f/5.6 with the extender on. other then that its some great equiptment that you will certainly not regret buying

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/15/2009 07:03:17 PM · #3

I have heard mixed reviews on the 2x extender and some people change to the 1.4x despite what they give up in reach. Probably reading some reviews on it would be a good idea.

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/15/2009 07:06:36 PM · #4

I regularly use the 1.4x on my 70-200/4.0 and I can see no drop off in quality whatsoever.

Balko

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/15/2009 09:25:25 PM · #5

Originally posted by AndyMac24:

The 70-200 2.8 IS works very well with a 2x converter. I used that combo before getting a 100-400L. I regretted switching.

Go for it :)

ben4345

04/15/2009 10:05:33 PM · #6

you're suppose to give your tax return to me!

AndyMac24

04/16/2009 12:04:40 AM · #7

Originally posted by ben4345:

you're suppose to give your tax return to me!

I'll get on that, just send me a paypal invoice. :P

Photologist

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max

04/16/2009 02:44:38 AM · #8

I have a configuration similar to what you are thinking about buying--the "Canon 40D" and the "70-200 f/2.8L IS" lens with the 1.4 extender. With that extender, you can open up to f/4 maximum. Like "JDubsgirl" said, with the 2x, you can only open up to f/5.6 maximum.

Remember, even with the 1.4x, you will get 280mm, which is 392mm equivalent on the 40D.

roba

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III

04/16/2009 03:13:21 AM · #9

I have that exact combination, and it works very well (IMO). While it does change the bokeh considerably (wide open), it still is an awesome combination. I say go for it, and enjoy. The resale market is great on the Canon teleconverters anyway, so you can always exchange it for the 1.4x later.

AJSullivan

04/16/2009 10:43:20 AM · #10

I bought a house so Obama is sending an additional 8k on top of my already pretty healthy refund.

So far on my list:
Wacom tablet
10.5 Fisheye
2 new lenses in the f/2.8 range
Honeymoon in the carribean.

jdixonsd

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/16/2009 10:49:37 AM · #11

One problem I have with the 2X is the autofocus don't work. I been told it's because there's not enough light.

kenskid

04/16/2009 11:21:56 AM · #12

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

AJSullivan

04/16/2009 12:00:01 PM · #13

Yeah, I rather the govt hold my money for a couple months rather than I do. Plus they are giving me my $8k a year early, so im fine.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Just think...if you would have adjusted your withholding the governement would not have been holding your cash for 0% interest. You could have purchased your items months ago. I perfer to keep all the earnings I can without paying a tax penalty. This sometimes means I may have to pay a few hundred bucks in April...but I like it that way....

.....I purchased a D90 months ago...

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I bought a house so Obama is sending an additional 8k on top of my already pretty healthy refund.

So far on my list:
Wacom tablet
10.5 Fisheye
2 new lenses in the f/2.8 range
Honeymoon in the carribean.

kenskid

04/16/2009 12:17:01 PM · #14

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Yeah, I rather the govt hold my money for a couple months rather than I do. Plus they are giving me my $8k a year early, so im fine.

Originally posted by kenskid:
Just think...if you would have adjusted your withholding the governement would not have been holding your cash for 0% interest. You could have purchased your items months ago. I perfer to keep all the earnings I can without paying a tax penalty. This sometimes means I may have to pay a few hundred bucks in April...but I like it that way....

.....I purchased a D90 months ago...

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I bought a house so Obama is sending an additional 8k on top of my already pretty healthy refund.

So far on my list:
Wacom tablet
10.5 Fisheye
2 new lenses in the f/2.8 range
Honeymoon in the carribean.

Mark-A

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/16/2009 12:28:56 PM · #15

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS USM plus 2x converter and I wouldn't recommend it personally, I am considering chopping the 2x in for a 1.4

I find the images are just a little too soft with the 2x on, although I haven't tried it on my 5D yet (will let you know when I get round to trying it on that camera) all the problems I previously experienced were with them attached to a 40D

MAK sold his 70-200 and 2x converter as his was even softer than mine when used together.

drick172

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/16/2009 12:39:29 PM · #16

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Remember, even with the 1.4x, you will get 280mm, which is 392mm equivalent on the 40D.

AperturePriority is correct except for the 392mm. The 1.6 factor on the 40D is not a magnification factor its a crop factor.

the 70-200 2.8 IS is a really great lens, heavy but great image quality. However it is not as sharp as my 50 1.4. So if you want great images with zoom convenience you can�t beat the 70-200. If you want the best image quality and dont care about how much you carry, you cant beat the 50m 1.4/1.8, 100mm (macro), and the 180mm (macro) all of these primes will cost just a little more than the one 70-200.

kenskid

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/16/2009 12:42:18 PM · #17

My 2x is also soft on my Nikkors.

Originally posted by Mark-A:

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

04/16/2009 12:50:00 PM · #18

//niftyprediction.blogspot.com/2009/02/8000-home-buyer-tax-credit-explained.html

Originally posted by kenskid:

Not to keep taking away from the OP...but refunds were mentioned at the beginning...

...this $8000 you say Obama is GIVING you....is that $8,000 he is simply GIVING you OR is he reducing your TAX BURDEN by $8,000 and giving you $8,000 of YOUR OWN MONEY BACK as an incentive to take a house "off the market"?

I'm serious and would really like to know how the $8,000 thing works.

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Yeah, I rather the govt hold my money for a couple months rather than I do. Plus they are giving me my $8k a year early, so im fine.

Originally posted by kenskid:
Just think...if you would have adjusted your withholding the governement would not have been holding your cash for 0% interest. You could have purchased your items months ago. I perfer to keep all the earnings I can without paying a tax penalty. This sometimes means I may have to pay a few hundred bucks in April...but I like it that way....

.....I purchased a D90 months ago...

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I bought a house so Obama is sending an additional 8k on top of my already pretty healthy refund.

So far on my list:
Wacom tablet
10.5 Fisheye
2 new lenses in the f/2.8 range
Honeymoon in the carribean.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

04/16/2009 01:03:20 PM · #19

I always try to not give the gov't an interest free loan too. I think the best I did was to owe $42 to the Fed and got $35 back from the state.

Unfortunately, the IRS has a mandatory 25% withholding on lump sum payments. I recently was laid off and offered a severance package that included a lump sum payment. There was more withholding from that payment than I have paid in taxes for the last three years combined. So, I've just loaned Uncle Sam several thousand dollars, interest free that I won't get back until I file my 2009 taxes.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/16/2009 01:22:54 PM · #20

Originally posted by drick172:

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Remember, even with the 1.4x, you will get 280mm, which is 392mm equivalent on the 40D.

AperturePriority is correct except for the 392mm. The 1.6 factor on the 40D is not a magnification factor its a crop factor.

There's no difference, in practical terms. It's the equivalent of FF 392mm on an APS-C sensor.

R.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

04/16/2009 01:55:58 PM · #21

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

...So, I've just loaned Uncle Sam several thousand dollars, interest free that I won't get back until I file my 2009 taxes.

Too bad on the layoff.... The withholding from salary is considered as evenly withheld from the year even when it's not... On the next job withhold a lot less so you can get a bit back before next year. There is a safe harbour that I forget 110% of last years tax or something or if you can do the maths you can get closer then that.

BigChris

04/16/2009 02:07:58 PM · #22

I have a 40D and the 70-200 f2.8 - the lens is fantastic, when I first used it I thought it was bloody heavy but once I saw the images I forgot all about the weight.

AJSullivan

04/16/2009 02:22:17 PM · #23

Does it really matter either way? I get $8k that I wouldn't have had if I didn't buy the house.

But I think its legitimately a bonus. Because if I owed tax money, it would be deducted from the 8k.

Originally posted by kenskid:

mikesnead

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

04/16/2009 02:24:44 PM · #24

I used to own a 70-200 2.8 IS along with the 1.4x converter. I miss the 70-200 dearly. The circular aperture made some sweet bokeh. It did get heavy at times for me so I often used a monopod with it. Images were still sharp with the 1.4x but cannot speak for the 2x.

Enjoy the new stuff!

(sidenote: I wish I had waited one more year to buy my house... my refund would have had a nice bonus)

AndyMac24