Maybe I should have posted this in the Nikon Forum! LOL.

[ijohnson]

I must have gotten your attention.

I have been dreaming, and researching and freaking out about this subject but here it goes.

After reading 100,000,000 of your posts (esp. Tom, Robert, Cyberdyne), I have decided on the following.

I am going to South Korea in one month and am totally obesessed with digital photography. So, I have decided on the following timeframe for equipment that I will need, want and afford while I am there.

Month 1: Canon EOS 10D and 50mm F1.8

Month 2: Canon EF 75-300 IS f4.0-5.6.

Month 5: Canon EF 17-40 F4L

Month 7: Canon EF 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS

Please correct me if I am wrong. I want to walk around and get great shots, alothough I also love nature photography, lanscapes, and close-up shots. Have I heard everything that the old-timers in this group have said and ignored it?

I hope I am doing the right thing. I was at the Detroit Auto Show yesterday and talked to a press photographer with a 10d Bg-ED, 17-40 L 550ex combo and literally almost lost my ability to see. Am I losing my mind or is that just a great auto show set-up.

I digress.

Please tell me what is wrong with my line of thinking. I truly respect and admire the opinion of this group.

Sincerely,
Isaac

[PacAce]

You might want to consider getting a flash (550EX or 420EX), too. How often you think you're going to need it should determine how soon you get it relative to the other items in the list.

And, of course, you're going to need big bag to keep all those equipments in.

So, you also want to get a 100-400L, huh? Then you might also want to consider a very sturdy tripod, such as the Bogen-Manfrotto tripod with a ball head.

An extra BP-511 or equivalent battery plus a couple of CF cards would be nice, too.
:)

And, oh yes, instead of the 70-300, how about the 28-135 IS since you don't have anything in the medium wide angle range. When you get the 100-400, the 70-300 will basically become redundant.

[Belmondo]

Strictly from the standpoint of utility, I'd probably skip the 75-300. It's a decent lens, but not the optical equal of the others you've mentioned. You'll have that range very well covered with the 100-400 (all but the little bit from 75 to 100), and believe me, once you have the big L lens, you'll never bother with the 75-300 again.

Of course I don't know what kind of shooting you're going to do, but you're smart not to get everything all at once. This will give you time to figure out if your plan is really the best one. For example, knowing what I know now, I'd probably go with the 24-70 f/2.8L as my first lens (aside from the f/1.8 50 mm which should be everybody’s first lens). It's brutally expensive, but for me is the most useful range for all around shooting in 'tourist' situations. If time and money allowed, I'd pick up a 70-200, and finally, the 17-40 last. If you think you’ll be heavily into landscapes, you might want to reverse that order.

Actually, regarding the 70-200, I'd be 95% as happy with the f/4.0 non-IS version if my budget necessitated a compromise. It’s nearly $1,000 cheaper than the f/2.8 IS version, and is a very sharp lens.

[ijohnson]

Tom,

I anticipate walking around Seoul and the countryside wanting to take everything from architectural shots to people shots. I have understood that the 17-40 is a great "walking around" lens. I have also undertstood that big white lenses put people in a trance so that you can get good cultural people and lifestyle shots. Given that this is true, which one would you want. I am speaking about an order here. My order is functionality (50 1.8) intimacy (75-300, given that is my understanding of a good lense to start zooming with), qulaity in functionailty (17-40L), then quality in intimacy (100-400L).

Yes, the budget is limited though a good portion of my income will be focused on camera equipment.

What about 50, 70-200, 17-40?

wait, I think I like that.

Good thing I'm not married.

[ijohnson]

You might want to consider getting a flash. And, of course, you're going to need big bag to keep all those equipments in. Then you might also want to consider a very sturdy tripod. An extra BP-511 or equivalent battery plus a couple of CF cards :) And, oh yes, instead of the 70-300, how about the 28-135 IS.

Thanks. I haven't even asked about the accessories. I have the tripod the flash and a hate for all the other things that I need. LEAVE ME ALONE!!

Seriously, I appreciate the advice. That is all the stuff that ruins me after I spent the money on lenses.

Simple equation: X=M*1.5 where M equals money spent recently and X equals total money actually spent.

[robertwgross]

Once you get past Seoul, then get out to the rural farmlands. Rice paddies are hard to shoot unless you get up high on a hill and shoot somewhat downward. Hang around for pepper harvest when they drag red and green peppers out of the fields and leave them in flat baskets in the sun to dry. That makes for a great shot if you give it a nice background. On the other hand, kimchi harvest can be traumatic if you aren't ready for the aroma.

There is very little that you can photograph up by the DMZ unless you are a military history buff.

There are some nice nature parks on the east coast, I think.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

:)

Sounds like quite an adventure! :)

I agree with whats been said,. forget the 75-300mm,. especially if your looking at the 100-400mm,. you'll never need the 75-300mm with that 100-400mm. The 28-135mm would be a much better choice to go with the rest of your collection.

What about 50, 70-200, 17-40?

That will work to. But if your out doors..I wouldn't worry to much about f/2.8 off the bat. The f/4 would be lighter and more affordable. Keep in mind the 100-400mm is LIGHTER than the 70-200mm f/2.8 :)

[chris.bailey]

Nice lense line up but I would get the 17-40 first, probably with the camera and would add in the 28-135 IS and then the 100-400. That gives you nice coverage and some overlap. The 17-40 is a grand tourist lense and quite portable. I would add the 50mm prime last. If you can afford it I would get the 1.4 over the 1.8, it is one of the unsung heroes in the Canon Lense line up.

[nosquare2003]

Have you posted this in Nikon forum???

[Jesper]

Wow, what a plan... :)

I have a 10D and the 28-135 IS USM and I find that 28mm is often too long - with the 1.6x crop factor the field of view at 28mm is equivalent to about 45mm on a full frame camera.

You plan to start with a 50mm lens, that would have the field of view of a 80mm lens on a full frame camera.

For me that would certainly not be wide enough if I were walking around in a city and I'd want to take pictures of buildings, for example. I'd get the 17-40 first. (By the way, I'm going to buy it next week in New York.... :) )

Also, I would get the 28-135 IS USM instead of the 75-300 IS USM. You probably wouldn't use the 75-300 anymore if you'd have the 100-400.

[PaulB]

Lenses - Hmm.

Start with the 17-40/4L - wide angle/general purpose covered here.

Follow with (at same time?) 50/1.8 low light/portrait (= 80mm on 35mm film; whatever that is!)

70-200/4L - up to 320mm equiv. after all.

1.4x Extender

Those lenses would do 99% of photographers for 99% of their shots I imagine.
Anything more than this is overkill and brings in redundancy in the focal lengths. You have after all to carry and look after this gear and be able to use it without thinking about it; unless you have specialist needs you have a lens kit which the 'Masters' coulld only have dreamed of. Just look at the classic pictures taken with a Leica and 50mm/3.5 lens on grainy (by todays standards) B&W film.

Less very often is more - and best.

[nosquare2003]

If I were you, I would get 24-85mm as my walk around lens. If money isn't much of concern, an L lens is always preferred...

And I would also get 17-40mm lens, 100-400mm lens and the 50mm/1.8.

[Longwatcher]

As some others mentioned, get the 28-135 IS instead of the 75-300. I like 75-300, but once you get a 70-200L or the 100-400L, the 75-300 will basically sit on the shelf or in the bag. The only exception is when traveling very light (in which case I usually go with a 50/1.4, 28-135 IS the 75-300 IS and sometimes 16-35L).

If you are getting the 75-300, then a better investment will be to get the wider "L" series zooms first before the 100-400.

since you will have the 17-40, go for the 24-70/2.8L then the 70-200L/2.8L, the 1.4 and 2x extenders and finally the 100-400. You will find that after getting the 70-200/2.8L and the 1.4x extender, your 75-300 will start sitting on the shelf.

Lastly remember to save 50% of your budget for accessories and misc.
Just my opinion

[ijohnson]

OK, so here is what I have temporarily decided, pending anything new and amazing in February.

I will start with the 28-135 IS just so that I can start taking pictures. That was what the 50/1.8 was for but with the following selections it would leave some gaps, agreed.

Next, the 17-40L because I will be spending my first 6 months in Seoul as a majority so portrait, building and landscape shots would be more prevalent.

After 6 months, the 100-400L as I begin to explore the nature aspect of Korea and have more time to travel the countryside.

Keeping in mind the other things in between, that should get me started.

PHEW!!! Then I realize that some ***** broke in to my room and took it all and I spend the next 3 months crying as I dust off the 35mm and save to start all over again.

?????

[ron chappel]

I dissagree with most apparently.From your timeline i see you just can't get any long lens but the 75-300 for awhile.Stick with that plan-it's better than no lens!And you'll easily be able to sell it for moderate loss when you get the 100-400.

I've had mixed thoughts about the 75-300.Of the several i've had only one has been quite good--But even an average one gets occasionally excellent shots so it's worth having

Have a good trip!
And definitely show us some of your pics when you get back,please!!
I have met tons of korean backpackers but NONE of them have any pics of their home/surounding district .In fact even guide books are hopeless for korean images.So i've never really seen the real korea...unless you count M*A*S*H, :D

[Longwatcher]

Even if you go with the 28-135 IS (which I recommend), still get the 50/1.8 (or 1.4). The 50/1.8 is only around $70 and will provide for low light situations that none of your other lenses planned on will match. It is an absolute bargain for what it does. It will be your portrait and low-light lens. What it won't do though is give you flexability, that is what your zooms are for.

If you want to go for the 50/1.4 later then you can wait for that one instead, but I think you will find you need a low light lens at some point to get the most flexability and the 50mm lenses will give you that at the lowest cost, while still providing a sharp crisp picture.

All that said, with the 28-135 IS you will at least be able to cover most situations with a very good lens.

[morenoar]

OK, after reading this post, I am thinking of going and getting the 50mm. Why? because I am headed to Japan on Tuesday. 10 days in Nagasaki for work and then 4 days in Tokyo for pleasure. My question is as follows. I have the 300D with the built in flash. Will the 50mm (remember I am a NEWBIE and can't take a picture worth a ***) help me with the night pictures with only the built in flash? I don't have the money to get both the lense and the Sigma Flash. Any advise would be helpful. OH, what do I do with the 18-55 Kit lens after

[PacAce]

OK, after reading this post, I am thinking of going and getting the 50mm. Why? because I am headed to Japan on Tuesday. 10 days in Nagasaki for work and then 4 days in Tokyo for pleasure. My question is as follows. I have the 300D with the built in flash. Will the 50mm (remember I am a NEWBIE and can't take a picture worth a ***) help me with the night pictures with only the built in flash? I don't have the money to get both the lense and the Sigma Flash. Any advise would be helpful. OH, what do I do with the 18-55 Kit lens after

The 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 will definitely be better for night shots than the kit lens in terms of getting more distance out of the internal flash. However, if you're going to be doing a lot of shooting indoors, especially where it's usually cramped indoors in Japan, I doubt it'll really make that much of a difference. As a matter of fact, to get a wider coverage indoors, your kit lens might be a better bet than the 50mm which essentially turns into a short 80mm telephoto in 35mm terms. The 50mm will be great for those "intimate" portrait or "close up" shots using available lighting (without the flash) which can really add to the mood fo the shot.

[ijohnson]

Have a good trip!
And definitely show us some of your pics when you get back,please!!
I have met tons of korean backpackers but NONE of them have any pics of their home/surounding district .In fact even guide books are hopeless for korean images.So i've never really seen the real korea...unless you count M*A*S*H, :D

I definitely will however I found a great site on pbase of a guy that lives there and takes fabulous pictures. Not sure what type of equipment he is using but he is quite talented regardless.

http://www.pbase.com/dbh

I hope that I can get half as many good pictures while I am there. Make that 1/4.