RikWriter
21st of September 2005 (Wed), 12:47
Okay, here is my situation.
Most of my photography is wildlife...birds, to be exact. Wildlife pics make up about 70% of what I do with my camera. The rest is about 25% landscape and 5% family photos and my son doing swimming or Tae Kwan Do (not so much the latter anymore since I am taking it too, now and don't have the opportunity).
So the most important things to me right now are wildlife and landscapes.
Right now, my kit consists of what's in my sigline.
I am at a point where I have the money to make a couple purchases but I find myself at a loss as to WHAT to purchase.
I've thought about getting a 100-400 but I've come to the conclusion that I simply like my 400mm f5.6L too much to get rid of it and I am frankly not sure how much I need the 100-399 part of the range. Also, I have a 1.4X TC I can use with my 70-200 if I really need the 300 area.
I COULD use a 500mm f4L, but that's just too much money right now...I can't swing ~$5000. Believe me, I've THOUGHT about it, but I want to stay married.
As for the landscape part of the spectrum, I think I have that covered with my 10-22 Canon and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. I suppose I could drop a grand into a Canon 24-70L but I am pretty happy with my Sigma so far and don't feel the need to do so.
Leaving lenses, I have plenty of memory and a light laptop with a DVD burner for storage, so that is not an area of need either.
I also have a nice tripod (although I might consider getting another head for it).
I don't do much portrait stuff and no formal studio type work, so I don't need lighting equipment.
The last area I've considered is the camera itself...I've thought about upgrading to a 1DMKII or a used 1Ds (I can't afford a 1DsMKII...again, the desire to stay married intervenes when I go over $3000 or so) or possibly getting the 5D. But I am pretty happy with my 20D so far, and given that I am not a sports photographer I don't need the frame rate of the 1DMKII. The weather sealing is attractive for when I go hiking, but the weight is not. Also, I don't really know if I want to go full frame anymore. If I did, I would wind up buying a 16-35 or 17-40L and my 10-22 already covers that territory and is a very nice lens. Plus I would wind up needing a longer telephoto for bird shots.
OTOH, the larger image size is attractive as I do like to blow up some landscapes for wallhangers. I've blown up pics from my DRebel, 10D and now 20D to 16x20 with very very nice results and if I had a 1Ds, I could get some truly BIG enlargements.
So, given what I've laid out as my needs, interests and budget, what's the prevailing wisdom? Should I give in to my spending itch and buy something and what? Am I good to go or do I simply not know what I am missing?
Most of my photography is wildlife...birds, to be exact. Wildlife pics make up about 70% of what I do with my camera. The rest is about 25% landscape and 5% family photos and my son doing swimming or Tae Kwan Do (not so much the latter anymore since I am taking it too, now and don't have the opportunity).
So the most important things to me right now are wildlife and landscapes.
Right now, my kit consists of what's in my sigline.
I am at a point where I have the money to make a couple purchases but I find myself at a loss as to WHAT to purchase.
I've thought about getting a 100-400 but I've come to the conclusion that I simply like my 400mm f5.6L too much to get rid of it and I am frankly not sure how much I need the 100-399 part of the range. Also, I have a 1.4X TC I can use with my 70-200 if I really need the 300 area.
I COULD use a 500mm f4L, but that's just too much money right now...I can't swing ~$5000. Believe me, I've THOUGHT about it, but I want to stay married.
As for the landscape part of the spectrum, I think I have that covered with my 10-22 Canon and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. I suppose I could drop a grand into a Canon 24-70L but I am pretty happy with my Sigma so far and don't feel the need to do so.
Leaving lenses, I have plenty of memory and a light laptop with a DVD burner for storage, so that is not an area of need either.
I also have a nice tripod (although I might consider getting another head for it).
I don't do much portrait stuff and no formal studio type work, so I don't need lighting equipment.
The last area I've considered is the camera itself...I've thought about upgrading to a 1DMKII or a used 1Ds (I can't afford a 1DsMKII...again, the desire to stay married intervenes when I go over $3000 or so) or possibly getting the 5D. But I am pretty happy with my 20D so far, and given that I am not a sports photographer I don't need the frame rate of the 1DMKII. The weather sealing is attractive for when I go hiking, but the weight is not. Also, I don't really know if I want to go full frame anymore. If I did, I would wind up buying a 16-35 or 17-40L and my 10-22 already covers that territory and is a very nice lens. Plus I would wind up needing a longer telephoto for bird shots.
OTOH, the larger image size is attractive as I do like to blow up some landscapes for wallhangers. I've blown up pics from my DRebel, 10D and now 20D to 16x20 with very very nice results and if I had a 1Ds, I could get some truly BIG enlargements.
So, given what I've laid out as my needs, interests and budget, what's the prevailing wisdom? Should I give in to my spending itch and buy something and what? Am I good to go or do I simply not know what I am missing?