What should I buy next...?

[KevC]

I've stumbled across a bit of extra money, and instead of being a good boy and throwing it towards the camera (I still have 10mo to pay for it) I'm considering buying a few things.

1. A flash: Canon 420EX ($180) or Canon 550EX (used ~$260) or Sigma EF500 DG Super (~$200)

2. Portrait Lens: Canon 85mm f/1.8 (~$340)

3. Standard Zoom: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di (~$370)

4. Medium Telephoto Zoom: Canon 70-200mm f/4L (~$580)

5. Longish Telephoto Zoom: Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L (~$1410)

I intend to buy everything eventually, it's just a matter of what I guess :) I've always wanted a flash, just to take low light and have fill flash. However, I recently starting playing with the on-camera flash and absolutely hate it. I know of *many* photographers who despise using flash. However, I've always thought of it as a necessity. I gotta learn someday, right?

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is what I'm aiming for now. The beautiful bokeh and longer reach will allow for nicer headshots. My 50mm f/1.8 is my most used lens right now. It's my best lens actually. I'm always shooting in low light, the conditions outside (Toronto) isn't so pleasing so I don't really have things to shoot out there.

The 28-75 is supposedly the "PJ's choice". A nice walkaround zoom, I've heard nice things about it. f/2.8 makes it fast enough. However, I don't really see myself using it. I use the kit lens for the Wide Angle, and the 50mm for everything else. I use my feet to zoom ;) Anyway, this lens is supposed to come in handy for hectic situations where I have no chance to walk around. Hmm...

The 70-200 f/4L. Hmm. A white lens. I might as well group this one with the same category as the 100-400. They're both *extremely* expensive. I don't even think I have enough for the 70-200 right now. I'd have to save up even more. But I'm wondering if I should or not. The 70-200 would be nice for travel. However, I'm in the middle of getting my degree right now so I'm probably not gonna go travel so much. The 100-400 would have awesome reach. I could probably see stuff I'd never imagine photography. Wildlife maybe? Birds? Hm... It seems nice, but I don't really think I'll be looking that far. So the 70-200/4 would be probably better for me and my wallet.

Anyway.... I think it boils down to flash or 85mm... simply cos it's the least expensive of them all... but then again the white lens would be awesome. Or maybe the vesatility of the Tamron? Hmm....

[HJMinard]

Is there a question in there? :D (Edit: Oh ... now I see it ... in the subject line ... duh)

It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on what you want ... well thought out. All of your choices are excellent. Since you already have the 50, I'd go for the flash first and then eventually the 85. Have fun!

[Citizensmith]

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is what I'm aiming for now. The beautiful bokeh and longer reach will allow for nicer headshots. My 50mm f/1.8 is my most used lens right now.

It would be a very good choice. I get a lot of use out of my 85, and actually sold my 50 as the 85 kind of put me off it. 90% of the time all I carry is a 17-40 and an 85 1.8 on a RebelD. No flash, filters, or anything. It's amazing how much you can cover with just those to lenses.

[tim]

If you're happy with your current lenses, i'd definitely get the 420EX first. If you want a higher quality lens, get the Tamron first and the 420EX next.

[Adam Hicks]

Yeah if you don't have any lenses the Tamron is a fantastic place to start. I personally would get the 550EX and skip the 420. You'll like the instant output control on the flash. I still have my 420, but I only use it as a slave to the 550 now days, because it drives me nuts not having any control on the flash!

But you have a great list of things to buy, and will be able to cover pretty much all focal lengths (you might want a 12-24 or 10-22) without spending a mint.

Good luck!
Adam

[charlesu]

I just bought the Epson P-2000. It looks to be a nice tool. Arriving tomorrow via Fed Ex! I am excited.

[Deckyon]

I would get an X-Box...

[pcasciola]

I would get an X-Box...HAHAHAHAHAHA

Not sure why I found this so funny, but right after reading Charles post and thinking "Was the P-2000 one of his choices", I almost fell on the floor after I read yours. :D

Charles, that P-2000 is a great storage/viewing device. I'm planning on getting one myself, but not until baseball season starts when I'll really need it.

Kev, I'm thinking in your shoes I'd get a used 550EX before the 85/1.8, especially since you already have the 50/1.8 to hold you over.

[digitalmono]

The next should be the 550EX (even for use with the 300D).

Cheers

[tim]

Or the Simga super waterever, which is mean to be just as good for a lot less money. I got the 550EX anyway, I figured it was worth sticking with Canon for future compatiability.

[KevC]

Hm. Alright. I'm really afraid of the Sigma. But I figured if I'm gonna get a third party lens like the Tamron, why not get a third party flash aswell... hmm...

Or I can scrape together enough to buy a 550EX used...

[MDJAK]

I just bought the Epson P-2000. It looks to be a nice tool. Arriving tomorrow via Fed Ex! I am excited.

I've had the Epson p2000 for a few weeks now. It is a great tool, but now that I am shooting Raw with my new 1Ds MKII, it is useful only as a storage device. It will not display the Raw files as they are just too large. I knew it wouldn't be able to manipulate them, such as zoom or slide show, but I thought I would be able to view them. Also, if the jpeg setting on the camera is set to it's finest quality, it will not display those either. A message comes up stating they are too large.

That is very disappointing.
Also, one other improvement is three seconds is the minimum you can set the slide show for and that is too long.

[pcasciola]

I've had the Epson p2000 for a few weeks now. It is a great tool, but now that I am shooting Raw with my new 1Ds MKII, it is useful only as a storage device. It will not display the Raw files as they are just too large. I knew it wouldn't be able to manipulate them, such as zoom or slide show, but I thought I would be able to view them. Also, if the jpeg setting on the camera is set to it's finest quality, it will not display those either. A message comes up stating they are too large.

That is very disappointing.
Also, one other improvement is three seconds is the minimum you can set the slide show for and that is too long.A lot of 1Ds Mk II/P-2000 users get around this by shooting RAW+Small JPEG. It's enough so you can check exposure, and zoom in and check focus on the JPEGs rather than the RAWs which are too large for the P2000 on that camera. I use RAW+L a lot on my 20D even, because I can browse the JPEGs a lot faster than the RAWs to quickly eliminate the throwaway shots.

[MDJAK]

I'll have to go back to the instruction manual on the Epson. It is so easy to use that I only glanced at it. I thought you had to copy the whole card. In addition, with a 1gb card, if I shoot raw and jpeg, the card would be full in a few minutes. As it is, shooting just raw I only get slightly over 50 shots. Perhaps when I get a 2gb card (or maybe a 4), then I'll go back to shooting both.

[pcasciola]

Try RAW+Small JPEG. Small JPEGs are only about 1.5MB a piece, so you should only lose about 10% of your capacity on any memory card over shooting just RAW on the 1Ds Mk II.

[MDJAK]

I will definitely try that.

Can you tell me how to copy just the small jpegs from the card to the Epson?

[pcasciola]

I'm not sure if you can easily just copy the JPEGs, unless you browse through and highlight just the JPEGs before you copy rather than doing a copy all.