I don't want to be "that guy"

[rbush83]

To whom it may concern,

I'm a young grad student who is taking an increasing interest in photography as a hobby. It started for me with a $300 Olympus 1.3MP no zoom point and shoot a number of years ago. I currently have an A80 which I've always been happy with. I now have dreams of bigger and more flexible things. Namely a Rebel XT.

I think I'd like to get a Rebel XT and a nice telezoom and travel around Michigan on weekends this summer visiting some of our road courses and see what I can do. I enjoy racing and I think it would be fun to get out to the tracks. I have other interests for photographic subjects, but this is my main focus right now.

I've been reading a lot and have my heart on throwing down on a 70-200 f/4L. Reading other posts sometimes almost make me feel like I'm not worthy :p . Does a fellow need to take bumps and bruises on a 75-300 before they should feel important enough to own this caliber of lens? In recent days I have wished that the f/4L weren't so imposing, and so, white!

I can promise to always look to the loose nut behind the camera as the source of virtually all photographic inadequacies that are bound to experienced in the future. I just don't want to be "that guy" that many of you have encountered in the field, and yes, on these forums.

Thanks for reading - and sorry if I didn't work a point in there somewhere :)
-Ryan

[roanjohn]

It seems you are heading on the right direction.......for your type of shooting, the XT and the 70-200 f4L would be a killer combo.......

And BTW, nobody is not worthy of an L lens........and it seemed that you have suffered enough bruises from your 1.3 Oly cam.........so isn't it time to mend those bruises with the sweet sound of an EOS shutter!!!

:-)

Go for it and have fun!!!

..........and BTW, which guy exactly are you talking about??

Ro1

[Andy_T]

Ryan,

welcome to the forum!

I definitely wouldn't spend money on a 75-300 first if I intended to get the 70-200/4.0 L.

However, be aware that with the 1.6 crop, this will be quite long ... it will be a 112-320 lens. I would suggest to get also a lens to cover the near to medium range. You can get a very good one (Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI) for about 350$, or an acceptable one (EF-S 18-55) for 100$.
Of course, there are also a lot of other options. Still, these come to my mind as they are all I normally use (apart from some longer primes).

Best regards,
Andy

[blue_max]

Never forget that without a vast array of L lenses and the most impressive camera you will never take a good shot.

Why bother?

I'll tell you a curious but true story now. I went fishing once when I was a young lad with a friend who had all the gear. I got a little bored and found a twig and used a little bit of stick as a float and borrowed a little line and a hook and started fishing. One of us caught 16 perch and one of us (him) caught 0.

Remember a top quality lens will only show how BAD you can be.

Graham

[rdenney]

Does a fellow need to take bumps and bruises on a 75-300 before they should feel important enough to own this caliber of lens?

A good camera and lens is a joy to use. Enjoy it. It won't make you a great photographer--only you can do that. But it won't get in your way, either.

If you want to suffer, get a Holga and try to make art with that. You shouldn't spend more than $20 just to suffer.

Rick "who has never regretted buying good equipment" Denney

[rbush83]

Is it possible that a top quality lens that shows how bad one can be would better facilitate learning than a lower quality one that doesn't?

[tim]

You might as well start out with good equipment - it's cheaper than buying average stuff then upgrading later.

[cdhender]

You might as well start out with good equipment - it's cheaper than buying average stuff then upgrading later.

I'm relatively new to this art and that's the advice I was given and the advice I followed. If you plan on upgrading later but can afford it now, why not just do it. It'll be cheaper in the long run.

[rbush83]

Thanks for mentioning the medium range zoom lens Andy. I'm aware of the of the tamron 28-75 and its following from my readings. There is another lens that I'm interested in, and that's the newer Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG. Information is fairly scarce on it unfortunately. I would love to see a comparison between the two. The image quality sounds like it is comparable, and I have read anecdotal evidence that the Sigma might focus faster. The best thing I've read about this lens is that Belmondo owns one, uses it, and likes it, and he owns an L lens in this range I believe.

[mvonditter]

Thanks for mentioning the medium range zoom lens Andy. I'm aware of the of the tamron 28-75 and its following from my readings. There is another lens that I'm interested in, and that's the newer Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG. Information is fairly scarce on it unfortunately. I would love to see a comparison between the two. The image quality sounds like it is comparable, and I have read anecdotal evidence that the Sigma might focus faster. The best thing I've read about this lens is that Belmondo owns one, uses it, and likes it, and he owns an L lens in this range I believe.
My all time fav. lens is my 35-350L f/3.5. It lives on my 1Ds 90% of the time. Might be hard to find one these days, however, worth the hunt.:lol:

[Incomplete Pete]

I started out on an EOS 50 with a 75-300 and made progress over the following 12 months to owning a 1D some L glass and plans to purchase a 1D MkII and 300mm f2.8 very soon. Owning the lesser equipment was vital for me as it taught me the fundementals of photography and as my skills grew I needed better equipment to suit etc., starting out with crappy equipment may not be glamerous etc. but you can still get killer shots and will ensure you don't blow your cash on a fad!

Perhaps wait, save up for longer, make sure you still want the L and buy the 70-200 f2.8, a much more useful piece of glass!

[roanjohn]

You might as well start out with good equipment - it's cheaper than buying average stuff then upgrading later.

I wish I'd learned this sooner............great advice.

Ro1

[roanjohn]

Is it possible that a top quality lens that shows how bad one can be would better facilitate learning than a lower quality one that doesn't?

Anything is possible.........

If you get mediocre results from a cheap lens, then you can blame the lens and yourself............which will end up confusing you.

If you get mediocre results from your L lens, then you can only blame yourself...........Now isn't it better when you know right away who to blame?? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ro1

[Roach711]

My biggest problem was getting desensitized to the huge prices on "L" glass. I had to hang out here at POTN until I no longer went into heart failure when I thought about the price difference between a decent lens and a great one.

I find it's best to never add up what I've spent on photo equipment. Ignorance is bliss.

Da Roach

[Anders Östberg]

I try to convince myself to take a very long perspective on lens purchases... divide the lens prices by 20 years or more or use and it feels a bit more manageable... I intend to keep my lenses a very long time. Bodies come and go but lenses last longer.

[cfcRebel]

If you get mediocre results from your L lens, then you can only blame yourself...........Now isn't it better when you know right away who to blame?? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ro1
That totally makes sense to me. :lol:

[Andrew Pratt]

If you're going to get started and are planning on upgrading just buy used gear in good condition...resale value will likely be very close to what you paid for it months later and can be a great way to get your feet wet and discover what you really need. Still if you've got the funds get what you want now.