Reading mode: Light Dark

Attention: Adam-T or other "Lens experts"

Go to last post
V

Verxion

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
399
Reaction score
2
Location
US
Been over and over and over this (lens choices for my 10d). Talked with my wife tonight and I really need to fit a wide range into my budget. I think I have something that works here, I am giving my thoughts on each lens choice, and I am looking for feedback:

1. Sigma EX Diagonal Fisheye 15mm f/2.8 ($400)

Adam-T had recommended the Sigma EX 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 as a wide angle for those of us on a budget. I am on a really tight budget (A little over $3k for ALL I am buying). After seeing some of the results with the Sigma 15mm, it appears that my landscape photos (the only place I want wide angle) would do well with this lens if I put the horizon close to the middle of the lens to minimize distortion. This lens is faster (2.8 vs. 3.5), and $150 cheaper. I am not too worried about losing the 16mm - 27mm range.

2. Sigma EX DF 28-70mm f/2.8 ($300)

I just cannot swing the Canon 24-70L, or even the 28-70L - they just don't leave enough room in my lens budget. Adam-T says this lens is quite good optically, and it is also fast. This particular range was eating a TON of my budget no matter how I looked at it. Again, this price point really allowed me to fill out my lens choices.

3. Canon EF IS 75-300mm f/4-5.6 ($390 for the import)

There were actually lots of choices that were candidates here. I looked at the 70-200 f/4L for $550, and depending on what I pay for the 10d in the end (currently budgeting it as $1500, but I am waiting a month before buying for my tax return, so it MAY be cheaper by then), I might be able to put the 70-200 f/4L in place of this lens. I guess my concern is just that I would LIKE to be able to do some hand held shots. Another, perhaps even better possibility is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM for $700. With this lens being as fast as it is, I wouldn't have to go so slow on my shutter speeds and might actually be able to hand shoot just because it is faster. Problem with this Sigma though, is it weighs in at 3 pounds - double the weight of the two Canon lenses. Regardless, at this moment, the 75-300IS fits my budget, and Adam-T has said that in the last 12 months or so, these lenses have gotten a LOT better.

What else am I buying? Well, here are the other items I am planning on buying:

1. Canon 420EX Flash ($165)

Relatively inexpensive flash for what it is capable of. Again, couldn't fit the 550EX or the Metz flashes into my budget.

2. Sandisk 1GB CF ($225)

This MIGHT be a place I could shave the budget back. I currently have 2 256MB Viking CF cards, and 4 128MB Mr. Flash CF cards. I may be able to defer this purchase until after I get the camera. My wife has actually filled the 256MB cards with 800 pictures in a single 2 hour session before though, so I figured I was going to need a bigger card. Difference is, she may actually endorse this CF purchase AFTER we have the camera though, so that might be a possibility. Anyone have a comment on the "durability" of the CF door? How bad would it be to swap out 6 CF cards all the time?

3. Canon BP-511 Extra battery ($65 import)

I know I am gonna need at LEAST one extra battery.

Hrm. Now that I have written this, I am thinking about what might happen to the budget if I took the CF card out of the list. Anyone have any comments on switching the 75-300IS out for the Sigma 70-200 EX HSM f/2.8? How horrible would it be to shoot at 312mm equiv. handheld? Especially considering it is 3 pounds!

Thanks for any feedback,

-Verxion
 
Definitely get the 70-200 f/4 L instead of the 75-300. It's light enough to shoot handheld without trouble. Far better than the 75-300.

Sandisk cards are horribly slow. I'd take this off, maybe get a transcend or ridata 512 instead. Or stick with the cards you have.

The Sigma lens is OK, at least my copy is. It focuses pretty slowly. I shoot so rarely in this range that I would skip it and get a 50mm 1.8 and wait til later on the short zoom so I could put the money towards the right long zoom (see above.) But that's me - I don't shoot much WA.

Good luck,

Steven
Verxion said:
Been over and over and over this (lens choices for my 10d). Talked
with my wife tonight and I really need to fit a wide range into my
budget. I think I have something that works here, I am giving my
thoughts on each lens choice, and I am looking for feedback:

1. Sigma EX Diagonal Fisheye 15mm f/2.8 ($400)

Adam-T had recommended the Sigma EX 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 as a wide
angle for those of us on a budget. I am on a really tight budget
(A little over $3k for ALL I am buying). After seeing some of the
results with the Sigma 15mm, it appears that my landscape photos
(the only place I want wide angle) would do well with this lens if
I put the horizon close to the middle of the lens to minimize
distortion. This lens is faster (2.8 vs. 3.5), and $150 cheaper.
I am not too worried about losing the 16mm - 27mm range.

2. Sigma EX DF 28-70mm f/2.8 ($300)

I just cannot swing the Canon 24-70L, or even the 28-70L - they
just don't leave enough room in my lens budget. Adam-T says this
lens is quite good optically, and it is also fast. This particular
range was eating a TON of my budget no matter how I looked at it.
Again, this price point really allowed me to fill out my lens
choices.

3. Canon EF IS 75-300mm f/4-5.6 ($390 for the import)

There were actually lots of choices that were candidates here. I
looked at the 70-200 f/4L for $550, and depending on what I pay for
the 10d in the end (currently budgeting it as $1500, but I am
waiting a month before buying for my tax return, so it MAY be
cheaper by then), I might be able to put the 70-200 f/4L in place
of this lens. I guess my concern is just that I would LIKE to be
able to do some hand held shots. Another, perhaps even better
possibility is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM for $700. With this
lens being as fast as it is, I wouldn't have to go so slow on my
shutter speeds and might actually be able to hand shoot just
because it is faster. Problem with this Sigma though, is it weighs
in at 3 pounds - double the weight of the two Canon lenses.
Regardless, at this moment, the 75-300IS fits my budget, and Adam-T
has said that in the last 12 months or so, these lenses have gotten
a LOT better.

What else am I buying? Well, here are the other items I am
planning on buying:

1. Canon 420EX Flash ($165)

Relatively inexpensive flash for what it is capable of. Again,
couldn't fit the 550EX or the Metz flashes into my budget.

2. Sandisk 1GB CF ($225)

This MIGHT be a place I could shave the budget back. I currently
have 2 256MB Viking CF cards, and 4 128MB Mr. Flash CF cards. I
may be able to defer this purchase until after I get the camera.
My wife has actually filled the 256MB cards with 800 pictures in a
single 2 hour session before though, so I figured I was going to
need a bigger card. Difference is, she may actually endorse this
CF purchase AFTER we have the camera though, so that might be a
possibility. Anyone have a comment on the "durability" of the CF
door? How bad would it be to swap out 6 CF cards all the time?

3. Canon BP-511 Extra battery ($65 import)

I know I am gonna need at LEAST one extra battery.

Hrm. Now that I have written this, I am thinking about what might
happen to the budget if I took the CF card out of the list. Anyone
have any comments on switching the 75-300IS out for the Sigma
70-200 EX HSM f/2.8? How horrible would it be to shoot at 312mm
equiv. handheld? Especially considering it is 3 pounds!

Thanks for any feedback,

-Verxion
Click to expand...
 
Steven Sterne said:
Sandisk cards are horribly slow. I'd take this off, maybe get a
transcend or ridata 512 instead. Or stick with the cards you have.
Click to expand...
Given your lens recommendation(s), and my own thoughts from writing the post in the first place, I am removing the sandisk card from my list just for the increase in lens budget.
Member said:
Definitely get the 70-200 f/4 L instead of the 75-300. It's light
enough to shoot handheld without trouble. Far better than the
75-300.
Click to expand...
Remember though, that on the d10, the 200 becomes 312mm. I intent to buy a tripod/monopod, but I won't ALWAYS have it available when I shoot long. Given that, would you still recommend the 70-200 f/4 L?
Member said:
The Sigma lens is OK, at least my copy is. It focuses pretty
slowly. I shoot so rarely in this range that I would skip it and
get a 50mm 1.8 and wait til later on the short zoom so I could put
the money towards the right long zoom (see above.) But that's me -
I don't shoot much WA.
Click to expand...
Which Sigma do you mean (especially in terms of the 50mm being a replacement)? I assume the 28-70, but I wanted to be sure.

Thanks so much for the feedback!

-Verxion
 
Verxion said:
Been over and over and over this (lens choices for my 10d). Talked
with my wife tonight and I really need to fit a wide range into my
budget. I think I have something that works here, I am giving my
thoughts on each lens choice, and I am looking for feedback:
Click to expand...
There, that was easy. Just used the erase function.

Why? You're seeing this as a one time, ain't gonna buy another lens, after you blow the budget type of purchase.

Consider buying your lenses over a two, three or four year time frame.

Buy yourself a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. Why, there's no other lens that deserves that position. All other lenses at that length are wanna-be's and never-can-be's and never-will-be's. Have some fun with the sensor body and the lens. Take the time to get to know how the sensor works. You'll be sorry you bought anything else to fill this spot. The 24-70mm f/2.8L can't be beat and is an excellent range for the 1.6x digital crop factor.

Get yourself a nice Lowepro, MicroTrekker 200 to carry your gear in. Next month, spend some more dough to get a couple of filters and if you need one, an off camera flash. I still don't have a flash after having the D30 over a year:-) Don't need a flash, so why buy one?

Later, get yourself either Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8L or Sigma's 15-30mm. Don't worry, more money will come in the door. The Sigma isn't a Canon but then again, a Casio isn't a Rolex:-) Bet the Casio keeps better time:-)

So the point, get the best lens going, such as the 24-70mm f/2.8L and make the journey an adventure, not a one time feast and add to your lens collection, the old fashion way, one lens at a time.

Hope the above is helpful.
 
I would get one or two lenses now with the money you want to spend. Don't worry about covering the whole range all at one.

What you want to AVOID is buying less expensive lenses now that you are going to unhappy with in a year or two and then have to sell to buy what you really want. Especially avoid this with Sigma lenses because you will be lucky to get 50% of what you paid back.

How about this:

Canon 20mm f/2.8 ($420)
Canon 28-80 f/2.8L ($850 used--many excellent ones around)
Canon 420EX ($165)
Extra Battery (3rd Party for $40)

OK, that is under $1,500 now. Then, after a while, when you have saved up a little, go get the Canon 70-200 f/4 ($550)

These are lenses you will be happy to own for a very long time.

I hope this helps.

Jerry
 
Thomas Gardner said:
Verxion said:
Been over and over and over this (lens choices for my 10d). Talked
with my wife tonight and I really need to fit a wide range into my
budget. I think I have something that works here, I am giving my
thoughts on each lens choice, and I am looking for feedback:
Click to expand...
There, that was easy. Just used the erase function.

Why? You're seeing this as a one time, ain't gonna buy another
lens, after you blow the budget type of purchase.

Consider buying your lenses over a two, three or four year time frame.

Buy yourself a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. Why, there's no other lens
that deserves that position. All other lenses at that length are
wanna-be's and never-can-be's and never-will-be's. Have some fun
with the sensor body and the lens. Take the time to get to know
how the sensor works. You'll be sorry you bought anything else to
fill this spot. The 24-70mm f/2.8L can't be beat and is an
excellent range for the 1.6x digital crop factor.

Get yourself a nice Lowepro, MicroTrekker 200 to carry your gear
in. Next month, spend some more dough to get a couple of filters
and if you need one, an off camera flash. I still don't have a
flash after having the D30 over a year:-) Don't need a flash, so
why buy one?

Later, get yourself either Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8L or Sigma's
15-30mm. Don't worry, more money will come in the door. The Sigma
isn't a Canon but then again, a Casio isn't a Rolex:-) Bet the
Casio keeps better time:-)

So the point, get the best lens going, such as the 24-70mm f/2.8L
and make the journey an adventure, not a one time feast and add to
your lens collection, the old fashion way, one lens at a time.

Hope the above is helpful.
Click to expand...
I agree, I have the Canon 24-85 and think it is a great lense, but would obviously prefer the 24-70L. I love my Sigma 15-30. I would never pay that much for another battery, I picked one up for $16 on e-bay and it works great.
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Canon 24-85
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
 
Have you budgeted for a battery grip (BG-ED3) and tripod? For people on a budget, the Bogen 3021 or Bogen 3001 are usually recommended. I believe the basic versions of the 3021 are about $120 at B&H, and that's what I'd go with. And some sort of QR plate(s). If you get a battery grip, you might be able to get by with just one on the bottom of the camera. Unless your plans are for shooting ONLY where a tripod is totally impossible, I think you'll find they improve the sharpness of your pictures, and ESPECIALLY your composition. Much easier to look for stray things in your picture and ensure that no heads are cropped off if you are using a tripod to hold the camera steady.

Allow me to suggest an alternate lens lineup:

Canon 17-40L f/4 when it comes out. I believe they are suggestinga $700 or so street price. This would be almost the equivalent of a 28-70 in terms of FOV on a D60/10D. Probably use it as your walking around lens. Is there some reason you're not considering the Canon 28-135 IS?

Canon 50mm f/1.8. I believe it is about $60. Very sharp, decent in low light, and extremely compact. If the gap between 40mm and 70 or 75mm didn't bother you, you could skip this, but it is a darned good value for the money.

Either a Canon 75-300 IS or a Canon 70-200 f/4. The prices of these escape me now, but you have listed them. If you insist on not getting a tripod, you'll want the IS version probably. I'd avoid the Sigma 70-200, most especially if you insist on not getting a 'pod. Note that I use a Sigma 14mm as my ultrawide lens, so I'm not just hysterically anti-Sigma.

If you have to cut corners, I'd defer compact flash card purchases for the time being. They are only gonna come down more in price.

Note that I'm just trying to parallel the focal length coverage you listed, since I'm not sure what sort of photography you plan to do. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Mike B. in OKlahoma
Verxion said:
Been over and over and over this (lens choices for my 10d). Talked
with my wife tonight and I really need to fit a wide range into my
budget. I think I have something that works here, I am giving my
thoughts on each lens choice, and I am looking for feedback:

1. Sigma EX Diagonal Fisheye 15mm f/2.8 ($400)

Adam-T had recommended the Sigma EX 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 as a wide
angle for those of us on a budget. I am on a really tight budget
(A little over $3k for ALL I am buying). After seeing some of the
results with the Sigma 15mm, it appears that my landscape photos
(the only place I want wide angle) would do well with this lens if
I put the horizon close to the middle of the lens to minimize
distortion. This lens is faster (2.8 vs. 3.5), and $150 cheaper.
I am not too worried about losing the 16mm - 27mm range.

2. Sigma EX DF 28-70mm f/2.8 ($300)

I just cannot swing the Canon 24-70L, or even the 28-70L - they
just don't leave enough room in my lens budget. Adam-T says this
lens is quite good optically, and it is also fast. This particular
range was eating a TON of my budget no matter how I looked at it.
Again, this price point really allowed me to fill out my lens
choices.

3. Canon EF IS 75-300mm f/4-5.6 ($390 for the import).

There were actually lots of choices that were candidates here. I
looked at the 70-200 f/4L for $550, and depending on what I pay for
the 10d in the end (currently budgeting it as $1500, but I am
waiting a month before buying for my tax return, so it MAY be
cheaper by then), I might be able to put the 70-200 f/4L in place
of this lens. I guess my concern is just that I would LIKE to be
able to do some hand held shots. Another, perhaps even better
possibility is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM for $700. With this
lens being as fast as it is, I wouldn't have to go so slow on my
shutter speeds and might actually be able to hand shoot just
because it is faster. Problem with this Sigma though, is it weighs
in at 3 pounds - double the weight of the two Canon lenses.
Regardless, at this moment, the 75-300IS fits my budget, and Adam-T
has said that in the last 12 months or so, these lenses have gotten
a LOT better.

What else am I buying? Well, here are the other items I am
planning on buying:

1. Canon 420EX Flash ($165)

Relatively inexpensive flash for what it is capable of. Again,
couldn't fit the 550EX or the Metz flashes into my budget.

2. Sandisk 1GB CF ($225)

This MIGHT be a place I could shave the budget back. I currently
have 2 256MB Viking CF cards, and 4 128MB Mr. Flash CF cards. I
may be able to defer this purchase until after I get the camera.
My wife has actually filled the 256MB cards with 800 pictures in a
single 2 hour session before though, so I figured I was going to
need a bigger card. Difference is, she may actually endorse this
CF purchase AFTER we have the camera though, so that might be a
possibility. Anyone have a comment on the "durability" of the CF
door? How bad would it be to swap out 6 CF cards all the time?

3. Canon BP-511 Extra battery ($65 import)

I know I am gonna need at LEAST one extra battery.

Hrm. Now that I have written this, I am thinking about what might
happen to the budget if I took the CF card out of the list. Anyone
have any comments on switching the 75-300IS out for the Sigma
70-200 EX HSM f/2.8? How horrible would it be to shoot at 312mm
equiv. handheld? Especially considering it is 3 pounds!

Thanks for any feedback,

-Verxion
Click to expand...
 
Thomas Gardner said:
You're seeing this as a one time, ain't gonna buy another
lens, after you blow the budget type of purchase.

Consider buying your lenses over a two, three or four year time frame.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right that I am seeing it as a one time purchase. I suppose it is sad, but it is fairly simple - my wife is giving me a $3k+ budget, and it could very VERY easily be two or more years before I can spend a large enough sum of money to buy another single good quality lens to add to the collection.
Thomas Gardner said:
Buy yourself a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. Why, there's no other lens
that deserves that position. All other lenses at that length are
wanna-be's and never-can-be's and never-will-be's. Have some fun
with the sensor body and the lens. Take the time to get to know
how the sensor works. You'll be sorry you bought anything else to
fill this spot. The 24-70mm f/2.8L can't be beat and is an
excellent range for the 1.6x digital crop factor.
Click to expand...
I want to be able to take some wide angle shots (I know that 38.4 isn't gonna be wide enough), and I - WANT - to be able to crop in camera like I could do with the 75-300IS. This has nothing to do with how good the 24-70 f/2.8L is - it has to do with what the 24-70 f/2.8L - CAN'T - do. That is what I am fretting. :(
Thomas Gardner said:
Get yourself a nice Lowepro, MicroTrekker 200 to carry your gear
in. Next month, spend some more dough to get a couple of filters
and if you need one, an off camera flash. I still don't have a
flash after having the D30 over a year:-) Don't need a flash, so
why buy one?
Click to expand...
Next month I sure won't be buying anything more. This is it for at minimum a year.
Thomas Gardner said:
Later, get yourself either Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8L or Sigma's
15-30mm. Don't worry, more money will come in the door. The Sigma
isn't a Canon but then again, a Casio isn't a Rolex:-) Bet the
Casio keeps better time:-)
Click to expand...
I love some of the shots I have seen with the 16-35mm f/2.8L, but that is another lens I cannot afford.
Thomas Gardner said:
So the point, get the best lens going, such as the 24-70mm f/2.8L
and make the journey an adventure, not a one time feast and add to
your lens collection, the old fashion way, one lens at a time.
Click to expand...
I am thinking this through. Question for ya - what would you say about getting JUST the 16-35 f/2.8L? Would you say that is a reasonable path as well, or do you see the 24-70 f/2.8L as an absolute "must have" first lens?

Just curious.

-Verxion
 
gdsf2 said:
What you want to AVOID is buying less expensive lenses now that you
are going to unhappy with in a year or two and then have to sell to
buy what you really want. Especially avoid this with Sigma lenses
because you will be lucky to get 50% of what you paid back.
Click to expand...
I understand the principle - but given my budget and the fact that I won't have much to spend for another year or more, I am really needing to get the absolute MOST bang for the buck on this set of purchases.
gdsf2 said:
How about this:

Canon 20mm f/2.8 ($420)
Click to expand...
This really won't be wide enough for me. That is only 32mm equiv., and as a result just won't let me capture as much in wide angle as I will need when doing landscapes.
gdsf2 said:
Canon 28-80 f/2.8L ($850 used--many excellent ones around)
Click to expand...
I don't trust ebay for this, and haven't been able to find the lens anywhere used. I will keep an eye out. Also - I thought I had read this lens was poor at 28mm, or was that only on the 28-70 f/2.8L?
gdsf2 said:
Canon 420EX ($165)
Click to expand...
I may skip the flash as well in the short term to get more lens budget. MAN, this is hard.
gdsf2 said:
Extra Battery (3rd Party for $40)
Click to expand...
VERY good to know these exist. Can you recommend a brand?
gdsf2 said:
OK, that is under $1,500 now. Then, after a while, when you have
saved up a little, go get the Canon 70-200 f/4 ($550)
Click to expand...
Yes, this lens seems EXTREMELY reasonable for the money - just that it isn't very fast.

-Verxion
 
17-40, 50 f1.4 & 70-200. Quality glass on a budget.
mikebinok said:
Allow me to suggest an alternate lens lineup:

Canon 17-40L f/4 when it comes out. I believe they are suggestinga
$700 or so street price. This would be almost the equivalent of a
28-70 in terms of FOV on a D60/10D. Probably use it as your
walking around lens. Is there some reason you're not considering
the Canon 28-135 IS?

Canon 50mm f/1.8. I believe it is about $60. Very sharp, decent
in low light, and extremely compact. If the gap between 40mm and
70 or 75mm didn't bother you, you could skip this, but it is a
darned good value for the money.

Either a Canon 75-300 IS or a Canon 70-200 f/4. The prices of
these escape me now, but you have listed them. If you insist on
not getting a tripod, you'll want the IS version probably. I'd
avoid the Sigma 70-200, most especially if you insist on not
getting a 'pod. Note that I use a Sigma 14mm as my ultrawide lens,
so I'm not just hysterically anti-Sigma.

If you have to cut corners, I'd defer compact flash card purchases
for the time being. They are only gonna come down more in price.

Note that I'm just trying to parallel the focal length coverage you
listed, since I'm not sure what sort of photography you plan to do.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

Mike B. in OKlahoma
Click to expand...
 
mikebinok said:
Have you budgeted for a battery grip (BG-ED3) and tripod? For
people on a budget, the Bogen 3021 or Bogen 3001 are usually
recommended. I believe the basic versions of the 3021 are about
$120 at B&H, and that's what I'd go with. And some sort of QR
plate(s). If you get a battery grip, you might be able to get by
with just one on the bottom of the camera. Unless your plans are
for shooting ONLY where a tripod is totally impossible, I think
you'll find they improve the sharpness of your pictures, and
ESPECIALLY your composition. Much easier to look for stray things
in your picture and ensure that no heads are cropped off if you are
using a tripod to hold the camera steady.
Click to expand...
I haven't thus far. I was sortof figuring this would fall into the range of something I could buy later on since it is a MUCH smaller individual price than these lenses.
mikebinok said:
Allow me to suggest an alternate lens lineup:

Canon 17-40L f/4 when it comes out. I believe they are suggestinga
$700 or so street price. This would be almost the equivalent of a
28-70 in terms of FOV on a D60/10D. Probably use it as your
walking around lens. Is there some reason you're not considering
the Canon 28-135 IS?
Click to expand...
If this lens was available right now my life would be a LOT simpler. I only found out today that this wasn't available yet. Adorama simply says they don't have stock, so I assumed it was available already. I am only going to get one purchase - after that, I am gonna be screwed for followup purchases for at minimum a year - let's just say wife issues. . . I am incredibly lucky to have the ~$3200 budget as it is, but I don't wanna screw myself out of any portion of it.
mikebinok said:
Canon 50mm f/1.8. I believe it is about $60. Very sharp, decent
in low light, and extremely compact. If the gap between 40mm and
70 or 75mm didn't bother you, you could skip this, but it is a
darned good value for the money.
Click to expand...
Yes, again, given the price of this lens, I can reasonably buy this AFTER my initial purchase. My real problem is going to be items that cost more than $100 or so, in which case, I will likely have to wait a year or more.
mikebinok said:
Either a Canon 75-300 IS or a Canon 70-200 f/4. The prices of
these escape me now, but you have listed them. If you insist on
not getting a tripod, you'll want the IS version probably. I'd
avoid the Sigma 70-200, most especially if you insist on not
getting a 'pod. Note that I use a Sigma 14mm as my ultrawide lens,
so I'm not just hysterically anti-Sigma.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 14mm f/2.8 would be nice, but it would sure remove a lot of other stuff from my budget.

Thanks for the insights.

-Verxion
 
Yep, I agree, this is a nice package:

17-40 f/4L ($700), 50 f/1.4 ($280), 70-200 f/4L ($600)

or save $200 and get the 50 f/1.8 instead.

Jerry
Fodo said:
mikebinok said:
Allow me to suggest an alternate lens lineup:

Canon 17-40L f/4 when it comes out. I believe they are suggestinga
$700 or so street price. This would be almost the equivalent of a
28-70 in terms of FOV on a D60/10D. Probably use it as your
walking around lens. Is there some reason you're not considering
the Canon 28-135 IS?

Canon 50mm f/1.8. I believe it is about $60. Very sharp, decent
in low light, and extremely compact. If the gap between 40mm and
70 or 75mm didn't bother you, you could skip this, but it is a
darned good value for the money.

Either a Canon 75-300 IS or a Canon 70-200 f/4. The prices of
these escape me now, but you have listed them. If you insist on
not getting a tripod, you'll want the IS version probably. I'd
avoid the Sigma 70-200, most especially if you insist on not
getting a 'pod. Note that I use a Sigma 14mm as my ultrawide lens,
so I'm not just hysterically anti-Sigma.

If you have to cut corners, I'd defer compact flash card purchases
for the time being. They are only gonna come down more in price.

Note that I'm just trying to parallel the focal length coverage you
listed, since I'm not sure what sort of photography you plan to do.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

Mike B. in OKlahoma
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't know your wife, but if you tell her you are reserving $700 of your budget for the 17-40 f/4L, and when it comes in, you are going to buy it, she can't really argue with that, can she? Tell her you will be earning 1% interest on the money while you wait.

If all else fails--buy flowers!

Jerry
Verxion said:
mikebinok said:
Have you budgeted for a battery grip (BG-ED3) and tripod? For
people on a budget, the Bogen 3021 or Bogen 3001 are usually
recommended. I believe the basic versions of the 3021 are about
$120 at B&H, and that's what I'd go with. And some sort of QR
plate(s). If you get a battery grip, you might be able to get by
with just one on the bottom of the camera. Unless your plans are
for shooting ONLY where a tripod is totally impossible, I think
you'll find they improve the sharpness of your pictures, and
ESPECIALLY your composition. Much easier to look for stray things
in your picture and ensure that no heads are cropped off if you are
using a tripod to hold the camera steady.
Click to expand...
I haven't thus far. I was sortof figuring this would fall into the
range of something I could buy later on since it is a MUCH smaller
individual price than these lenses.
Verxion said:
Allow me to suggest an alternate lens lineup:

Canon 17-40L f/4 when it comes out. I believe they are suggestinga
$700 or so street price. This would be almost the equivalent of a
28-70 in terms of FOV on a D60/10D. Probably use it as your
walking around lens. Is there some reason you're not considering
the Canon 28-135 IS?
Click to expand...
If this lens was available right now my life would be a LOT
simpler. I only found out today that this wasn't available yet.
Adorama simply says they don't have stock, so I assumed it was
available already. I am only going to get one purchase - after
that, I am gonna be screwed for followup purchases for at minimum a
year - let's just say wife issues. . . I am incredibly lucky to
have the ~$3200 budget as it is, but I don't wanna screw myself out
of any portion of it.
Verxion said:
Canon 50mm f/1.8. I believe it is about $60. Very sharp, decent
in low light, and extremely compact. If the gap between 40mm and
70 or 75mm didn't bother you, you could skip this, but it is a
darned good value for the money.
Click to expand...
Yes, again, given the price of this lens, I can reasonably buy this
AFTER my initial purchase. My real problem is going to be items
that cost more than $100 or so, in which case, I will likely have
to wait a year or more.
Verxion said:
Either a Canon 75-300 IS or a Canon 70-200 f/4. The prices of
these escape me now, but you have listed them. If you insist on
not getting a tripod, you'll want the IS version probably. I'd
avoid the Sigma 70-200, most especially if you insist on not
getting a 'pod. Note that I use a Sigma 14mm as my ultrawide lens,
so I'm not just hysterically anti-Sigma.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 14mm f/2.8 would be nice, but it would sure remove a lot
of other stuff from my budget.

Thanks for the insights.

-Verxion
Click to expand...
 
Verxion said:
You are absolutely right that I am seeing it as a one time
purchase. I suppose it is sad, but it is fairly simple - my wife
is giving me a $3k+ budget, and it could very VERY easily be two or
more years before I can spend a large enough sum of money to buy
another single good quality lens to add to the collection.
Click to expand...
Then you're going to have to do the unmanly thing and pout. Jump up and down, make a lot of noise and pout. You're just going to have to assert yourself:-) Women have trouble with this sort of behavior:-)
Verxion said:
Verxion said:
Buy yourself a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. Why, there's no other lens
that deserves that position. All other lenses at that length are
wanna-be's and never-can-be's and never-will-be's. Have some fun
with the sensor body and the lens. Take the time to get to know
how the sensor works. You'll be sorry you bought anything else to
fill this spot. The 24-70mm f/2.8L can't be beat and is an
excellent range for the 1.6x digital crop factor.
Click to expand...
I want to be able to take some wide angle shots (I know that 38.4
isn't gonna be wide enough), and I - WANT - to be able to crop in
camera like I could do with the 75-300IS. This has nothing to do
with how good the 24-70 f/2.8L is - it has to do with what the
24-70 f/2.8L - CAN'T - do. That is what I am fretting. :(
Click to expand...
That's because you're seeing it in the wrong terms. First, a bad lens is a bad lens. There's nothing like a good lens.

Trust me, the money will be there in the future. Buy one decent lens. If wide angle is your game, then get Sigma's 15-30mm, get a bag and your flash. Later get another lens. Don't try and do it in one budgetary splurge.
Verxion said:
Verxion said:
Get yourself a nice Lowepro, MicroTrekker 200 to carry your gear
in. Next month, spend some more dough to get a couple of filters
and if you need one, an off camera flash. I still don't have a
flash after having the D30 over a year:-) Don't need a flash, so
why buy one?
Click to expand...
Next month I sure won't be buying anything more. This is it for at
minimum a year.
Click to expand...
Verxion said:
I love some of the shots I have seen with the 16-35mm f/2.8L, but
that is another lens I cannot afford.
Click to expand...
Then get your Sigma 15-30mm and learn how it works with the 10D. Here's a shot captured with Sigma's 15-30mm.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1314093

Oh looky, here's another shot capture with a Sigma 15-30mm.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1337415

Oh my, that darn 15-30mm, keeps popping up:-)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1177985
Verxion said:
Verxion said:
So the point, get the best lens going, such as the 24-70mm f/2.8L
and make the journey an adventure, not a one time feast and add to
your lens collection, the old fashion way, one lens at a time.
Click to expand...
I am thinking this through. Question for ya - what would you say
about getting JUST the 16-35 f/2.8L? Would you say that is a
reasonable path as well, or do you see the 24-70 f/2.8L as an
absolute "must have" first lens?
Click to expand...
Boy! That's a good question. Why? Because it's a personal taste question. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd want both:-) Really!

But the 24-70mm f/2.8L is a killer knock about lens to go to the park or beach with. You can do semi-macros with it.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=190776

All but the bottom right shot was with a 28-70mm f/2.8L, the precursor to the 24-70mm f/2.8L. And you can do great senics with the lens also.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1337297 .

Hopefully the shots with the different lenses will give you a clue. Better yet, get both the lenses and tell the wife that if you can't have your way.....you'll start to pout again:-)
 
I agree. Pick your lenses slowly. Since it sounds like you don't have any canon glass yet, I would heartily recommend:

1. canon 50mm prime 1.4 USM> $300. Fabulous all purpose extremely fast lens. You will always have need for a decent 50.

2. A good tripod is more important than an expensive lens! Get two. a lightweight for travel and a heavy duty for serious photos.

3. As your budget allows, I would add the 20mm / 2.8 prime, 100mm macro USM. The 100 macro is amazingly sharp and allows for very creative up close photos.

4. Get a cheap canon 24-85 zoom for travel use, non serious images. You will not always be in a situation where you can safely, easily switch lenses.

5. agree with the 420 EX. Love the fill flash feature. Plus, overtime, if you decide to experiment with studio / model photos, add the 550 EX and you will have wireless slave capabilities.

Save the extra cash for a big CF card, or a faster computer / harddrive to store all your photos.

If it were me, I would stick with primes. better photos and cheaper cost overall. Primes also force you to become a better photographer. You will start to think about framing and perspective. Sometimes, zooms allow you to cheat around this issue. The 20 prime, 50 prime, and 100 macro are not only all together ~$240 cheaper than the 24-70 L 2.8, but also noticeable sharper. As my photo experience grows, the only purchases I have ever regretted, are the cheap 3rd party lenses. (yes I know some 3rd party stuff is good and expensive, but then where's the advantage?)

My 2 cents.
b
Thomas Gardner said:
Verxion said:
Been over and over and over this (lens choices for my 10d). Talked
with my wife tonight and I really need to fit a wide range into my
budget. I think I have something that works here, I am giving my
thoughts on each lens choice, and I am looking for feedback:
Click to expand...
There, that was easy. Just used the erase function.

Why? You're seeing this as a one time, ain't gonna buy another
lens, after you blow the budget type of purchase.

Consider buying your lenses over a two, three or four year time frame.

Buy yourself a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. Why, there's no other lens
that deserves that position. All other lenses at that length are
wanna-be's and never-can-be's and never-will-be's. Have some fun
with the sensor body and the lens. Take the time to get to know
how the sensor works. You'll be sorry you bought anything else to
fill this spot. The 24-70mm f/2.8L can't be beat and is an
excellent range for the 1.6x digital crop factor.

Get yourself a nice Lowepro, MicroTrekker 200 to carry your gear
in. Next month, spend some more dough to get a couple of filters
and if you need one, an off camera flash. I still don't have a
flash after having the D30 over a year:-) Don't need a flash, so
why buy one?

Later, get yourself either Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8L or Sigma's
15-30mm. Don't worry, more money will come in the door. The Sigma
isn't a Canon but then again, a Casio isn't a Rolex:-) Bet the
Casio keeps better time:-)

So the point, get the best lens going, such as the 24-70mm f/2.8L
and make the journey an adventure, not a one time feast and add to
your lens collection, the old fashion way, one lens at a time.

Hope the above is helpful.
Click to expand...
 
I throw this out there for thought. I have always been intrigued by Mike Malloy's work. I think it is awesome ( see Mind&Machine.com). I only wish I had half of his talent. What is intriguing to me is that if you look at his equiptment list, you will only see 3rd party, inexpensive glass. This tells me that it is WAY MORE the photographer than the glass. You might want to check it out because, as far as I am concerned, until I can get his results, I probably don't deserve expensive glass. Just something to think about!

Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Canon 24-85
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
 
Thomas Gardner said:
Then you're going to have to do the unmanly thing and pout. Jump
up and down, make a lot of noise and pout. You're just going to
have to assert yourself:-) Women have trouble with this sort of
behavior:-)
Click to expand...
Gonna try it tonight. I will let everyone know how it goes in the morning.
Thomas Gardner said:
That's because you're seeing it in the wrong terms. First, a bad
lens is a bad lens. There's nothing like a good lens.
Click to expand...
Trying to bear that in mind.
Thomas Gardner said:
Boy! That's a good question. Why? Because it's a personal taste
question. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd want both:-)
Really!
Click to expand...
Here goes:

~$1400 (I am praying I can find it for this in a month) Canon 10d
~$540 (import) Canon 70-200mm f/4L EF USM
~$290 (import) Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF USM
~$800 (Adorama's pricing) Canon 17-40mm f/4L EF USM

Total: $3030

With shipping, and hopefully avoiding tax, that puts me at my absolute llimit. I am gonna talk to her tonight about letting me wait to buy the 17-40L. I will have to buy the tripod too, just later on.

Wish me luck!

-Verxion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top