Advise the best route to bankruptcy....

[Timm]

After a number of years away from photography I purchased a cheap EOS 300 film body 2yrs ago with a couple of lenses - 28-80, 70-200 both about F4.5-5.6 (or there abouts) and was reasonably pleased with the results. Then I got a Sigma 8mm F4 for a bit of fun & liked it. :D

Recently, after toying with a 3mp Sony P&S and deciding that I wanted to do more digital photography, I purchased a DRebel with 18-55USM lens - figuring the three lenses from my EOS300 would go with it until I could get some better glass.

Well I've read the various posts about different lenses, Canon or not, L or not, etc. etc. etc. and looked at the photos in various galleries, now come the obvious questions...

Having decided (much to the impending horror of my chequebook! ;)) to go with Canon Lenses, that will be compatible with my film body & also full frame should I go that far in the future.

The big question now is - do I need the luxury of F2.8 and the magic trio, or will F4 do to ease me ( and the chequebook) into things? :confused:

At present my main interest is in Architectural photography & Street scenes, however I also want to have a go at landscape & nature shots, although am thinking a dedicated prime would be best if I go to Macro. I'm also going after some Tall Ships in July - weather permitting...

I am seriously thinking of the 17-40 L USM & the 70-200 F4 intially - would these be a good combination to start with, later adding the 24-70 F2.8 if needed when the funds are available, or should I do it the other way round and get the F2.8 first?

At present funds permit either the F4 duo or the 24-70 F2.8 on it's own.

Another query is the ability if the 70-200 F4 in average light - is it fast enough to use handheld? The F2.8 IS, whilst a dream of a lense, would I feel be too heavy for me to hold for long - and I sure couldn't afford to drop one! :cry:

So basically - will F4 do for where I am at the foot of the learning curve - or should I get on Ebay and sell a kidney to fund the F2.8's ? :lol:

[DocFrankenstein]

Welcome to the club, kiss your wallet good bye!

It's hard to give advice, because all of the lenses are good and che choice will depend on your subjects and shooting style.

[snibbetsj]

Well, it sounds to me like you're screwed :rolleyes: ! A lot folks get the 70-200 f4 instead of the 2.8 and save about $800 and never really need the 2.8. The f4 is an L also and may be the sharpest zoom Canon has. You might look at the 50 f1.8 and 85f1.8 also, while they're not L lenses, they are excellent quality as many, including myself, will testify. The Tokina 17 f3.5 is an excellent wide lens also.

Don't forget to save a few bucks for a nice doghouse with a cot and pillow. :D

[Dante King]

I second the 50mm 1.8, for 70 bucks you checkbook wont feel violated. I also second the 85mm 1.8. Its one sweet hunk o'glass. That would cover your portrait needs very cost efectively.

I just gor the 70-300 DO IS USM and despite some negative posts, this lens is turning out to be SUPER SWEET. I can not beleive the 100% crops. It is small, relatively light weight from the DO optics and comes with a hood. I am amazed at being able to shoot 1/30 TV at 200mm and have crystal sharp results. I can, form personal experience recomment this lens as a good less expensive sub for the 70-200 2.8. Before people start throwing cinder blocks my way, I dont feel that this lens rivals the 70-200, but is a less expensive resonable substitute. I cant beleive canon does not include a hood with their lenses. I would pay the extra up front but they dont so thats a rant for another post.

Although its not full frame, the 10-22 EFS is a very nice wide. Is not FF campatable, but I think this lens will retain resale value down the road. Its components are L quality, I have no reason why this lens was not designated L. Maybe its the EFS mark?

I must say from all I have gathered from my talking to my canon sale people (that is my Local sale People guys!!), they admitted under annonimity, that the tamron 90 SP DI macro is the sharpest macro made. I love mine.

I have been looking to get an L lens for some time not, but I keep getting excellent suggestions form my local canon sale people that have kept me away form being an "L" coholic.

I think I am going to be flamed in this thread! This is my opinion only and others might be able to offer advice that makes more sense to you.

[Dante King]

OH, I forgot! Welome to the forum! Just leave your checking acct number and bank routing number and we will forward your paychecks to your local canon lens dealer!

[tim]

I've decided to go with F2.8 or faster lenses, I seem to do quite a bit of low light photography, and 2.8 is almost fast enough for me.

The 50mm F1.8 is cheap, but a few people, including myself, have had problems with its poor focus accuracy. Right now I can't recommend this lens, but many people are happy with it.

[Sean-Mcr]

I went with fast lenses as i like available light shots. I bought the 16-35 over the 17-40 and bought the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 the same day. Have to say that i'm a person that's always in town on the streets and pretty much have a social life that means i'm often inn canal bars ect and i take my camera everywhere with me and even 2.8 is often not enough so i know the 17-40 wont suite me, which makes me realise that the 70-200 F4 would be no good for me...

But it does depend on your style, i'd personally not go for F4 lenses.


But they may well suit you

[CyberDyneSystems]

You don't need f/2.8 (or even L) for top level image quality,.

But for starters your own idea of the two f/4L lenses, (17-40mm & 70-200mm) are optically as good as any zoom lenses made. You sacrifice nothing with them but some shutter speed and DOF control of the faster f/2.8

Some of the best lenses around are fast primes that re NOT L...
85mm f/1.8 USM is a sterling example...
100mm macro,. and of course you can even get an f/2.8 L.. the 200mm Prime for a "value" price.

[Sean-Mcr]

I've got to say that my two new pirmes have been on my camera most of the time even over my new zoom. It's even crossed my mind going down the all prime route but i've not really given the 16-35 much of a run in as i've never used primes before and it's a new aspect for me which i'm really enjoying so i'm giving them a a good run in

[Longwatcher]

Given you are trying to decide between f4.0 and 2.8, You are more likely to need the 2.8 on the wide end, so if you decide you can only get one f2.8 of the two, go wide.

My possibly flawed logic is that I need my wide for indoors, where there tends to be less light. If outside, there is only a short period of time where F2.8 will help over f4.0.

On the flip side, My 70-200/2.8L IS gets a work out indoors a lot.

If you can afford it, go f2.8 all the way. Then you will never be wondering if f2.8 would have been better.

If you can't afford, the f4's won't be bad and you are not likely to worry about it.

If still confused, send me a check for what you might have spent, so you won't have that confusion any more and I can maybe get the last three lenses on my list (85/1.2, 135/2, and 15 FE). They are waiting until my credit card goes from glowing bright yellow, back down to just a charcoal red.

[Redbird_xo]

If you can afford it, go f2.8 all the way. Then you will never be wondering if f2.8 would have been better.

If you can't afford, the f4's won't be bad and you are not likely to worry about it.


I find these two statements to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I personally always try to get lenses with F/2.8 or larger because they simply offer higher flexiblity in shooting.

[condyk]

At present my main interest is in Architectural photography & Street scenes, however I also want to have a go at landscape & nature shots, although am thinking a dedicated prime would be best if I go to Macro. I'm also going after some Tall Ships in July - weather permitting...

I am seriously thinking of the 17-40 L USM & the 70-200 F4 intially - would these be a good combination to start with, later adding the 24-70 F2.8 if needed when the funds are available, or should I do it the other way round and get the F2.8 first?

At present my main interest is in Architectural photography & Street scenes, however I also want to have a go at landscape & nature shots, although am thinking a dedicated prime would be best if I go to Macro. I'm also going after some Tall Ships in July - weather permitting...


What a great position to be in ... exciting new DSLR hobby, some cash to spend and willing to take advice rather than jump right in with a speculative buy. Be interested in finding out what you decide :)

My take is that the popular faster L lenses don't appear on ebay that often, at least in the Uk, and when they do they go for premium prices; so, not sure if that's an option for you. If it was then I would always go faster first. Keep you eyes open on the main forums and ebay and you could be lucky. I have been so far :)

Assuming it's not an option then the two L's you selected are great lenses, I am after the 17-40 L myself, or something very similar output quality from 3rd party brand. My experience of the 70-200 F4 is that it is great in decent light but can be a pain in lower light, such as tramping through woodland or indoors. It's not long enough for much wildlife, even with an extender (1.4x, doesn't AF with 2.0x), and so you need to consider if you need that mid zoom kind of length: you probably do given your interests.

HOWEVER, remember that lots of people WANT these lenses too and so even if you buy them and down the line want faster then you will likely lose not much. Keep them MINT and don't lose the boxes, etc. If you can get them MINT and boxed second hand then even better ... look on it as long term rental, the resale is that good :lol:

For architectural this pair will work nicely ... wide and zoom as necessary, but what about a flash for indoors? Landscape you should be Ok.

Wildlife ... the reality is you need 400mm minimum unless you're at the Petting Zoo :lol: :lol: prime or zoom is a personal preference, but I would go zoom every time unless I was after birds in flight. It's just more flexible to me framing wise.

Shame you're not opening the doors to 3rd party lenses as you could maybe get the speed and quality you want for much less outlay. Pop over to fredmiranda.com, register as a member and browse the review section there. All 'real world user' reviewers and very interesting reading.

My view is that Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all make a few great lenses that would compare with equivelent L's in output quality. Have a look with your credit card in hand ... after a short while it will start to get warmer and if you look closely you may even see that little piece of plastic start to smile :lol: :lol:

PS the 50mm f1.8 is also a great buy with good resale. Mine rarely fails to get a decent shot indoors. It would help out your F4's nicely.

[Timm]

Welcome to the club, kiss your wallet good bye!
It's hard to give advice, because all of the lenses are good and che choice will depend on your subjects and shooting style.

Thanks for the welcome - the wallet is cowering in terror behind the couch already! :confused:

At present I don't have a shooting style, just a vague idea of the things I'd like to shoot - apart from a large hole in my bank balance that is! I think perhaps the car is a luxury I can do without... Then again I'll need something to carry the kit! Ditto the dog-house is already occupied & the mutt's not a sharing type... I have scars to prove it! ;)

I forgot to add the 50 f1.8 to my list of current lenses - this was part of the reason for thinking of the two f4's initially as it sits in the gap.

Having the 8mm Sigma already makes me think the 16-35 or 17 40 would give a better spread of coverage than the 10-22, as the 1.6x trim factor gives a view approximating that of a 13mm optic.

The thought on the 70-200 f4 was the weight -> due to hand injuries weight can be an issue (which was why I'd previously discounted the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 also)... heck, even a pen can be problematic somedays - although that does slow down the signing of card receipts! :lol:

Dante King's mention of the 70-300 DO IS is something I had not thought of - not as conspicous as the 70-200's, although not as fast either and the f4 with a 1.4x would give me comparable reach/speed if I understand thinks correctly, albeit without the IS... The pictures in his gallery show that it is a good lens, but the 70-200 f4 comes out quite well in the samples I've seen too. (rdenny's bokeh test post amongst others)

Then Condyk goes and brings up the 3rd parties again - and I see uses the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 I'd been thinking of which although heavy :( is a similar price to the 70-200 f4...

Oh the choices, the choices!

Have a look with your credit card in hand ... after a short while it will start to get warmer and if you look closely you may even see that little piece of plastic start to smile - that's not a smile, it's a grimace of pure terror at the upcoming flexibility test...

So far I am now leaning towards the 16-35 f2.8 & 70-200 f4 - see, the cost is going up already :o and then when the card (and myself) have recovered there'll be a 24-70 f2.8 thrown in... If the f4 proves too slow it has a decent resale value in good condition - and my 20yr old Minolta based stuff is still mint. :)

Perhaps one day I'll get that 85 f1.2 - anyone want to join me on a bank raid?? ;):lol:

[Kennymc]

I use the 17-40 L f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/4 as you will see from my signature, you may also notice I use a Tamron 28-75, which though slower to AF than the Canon and not as well built is almost as good optically... Just be careful if you still wish to use the lenses with 35mm bodies as the EFs lenses won't fit...

[karusel]

Timm very obviously belongs to this forum. :D

To answer the questions, sooner or later you WILL want the f/2.8. You really may not need it at 17-40mm range, but at 70-200mm and higher it comes very handy and is sometimes a necessity. When it's all sunny and bright you have no particular trouble shooting for instance, with a 600mm f/8 mirror lens, put some clouds up in the sky and you can forget handheld shooting. I'm selling the 100-400L now also because of f/4.5-5.6, since the conditions I more than once shot at required me to use ISO 1600 (I had to shoot at f/6.7, because of f/5.6 softness). After I'll have sold it, I'm getting fast and sharp primes. Now that is the best route to bankruptcy. :D

[Az2Africa]

Hi Timm. Welcome to the forum.I primarily shoot wildlife in Africa, so have a need for different lenses, but the costs are the same.My theory is that you never regret buying the BEST.I had been lurking around this forum for the past 8 months prior to acctually joining and based on what I read, I budgeted $1,000.00 a month to this addiction. Now, 8 months and $8,000.00 later the spending is not slowing down. it's speeding up!! I was feeling ok, then Karusel goes and brings up the 600mm prime:evil: !! I'm going to have to send people to his house.HeHe
But really. depending on your budget, I would start with a great prime or zoom(go try em' out first) and build from there. I feel my only mistake buy was the 75-300 IS, which was quickly replace by the 70-200 f2.8L IS and sold at a loss. I won't do that again. Anyway, welcome to that poorhouse.The guys here are great and have been essensial to my venture into Digital photography.

[TheBlindOne]

If it doesn't bother you to have used glass go to a good camera store and search for some of this glass secondhand. A reputable camera store will have some pro glass in ex+/- condition and it will save you a couple of bucks.
Riaz

[lancea]

Speaking on your choice for an architectural and landscape lens only, I think you'd find the 17-40 pretty good, but for architectural shots you will probably wish for a wider lens. Someone posted some shots of a church very recently along with the comment how useful a wide wide-angle is to get "under" those ugly powerlines that tend to be strung in front of nice buildings. That's often a problem, along with having cars in the way. There's many a time I wish I could get "up close". Perhaps the Canon 10-22 EF-S?

As to the whether an f4 will be sufficient, I'd say yes certainly. Reading this forum can easily lead to a case of lens envy :) It's often not obvious who is a hobbyist and who is a professional. When the purchase is a personal expense then the same rules of selection don't apply. You can only buy what you can afford and it's no good worrying that you should have bought a 2.8 if it costs the earth. As you say, weight can also be a factor that makes a cheaper f4 lens more desirable. By the way, photography is my hobby. I like to buy quality, but there are limits to how much I'll spend for it. Man's gotta eat!

[Bruce Hamilton]

Welcome to the club, kiss your wallet good bye!

Only the cash, he'll still have the empty wallet. :lol:

[Timm]

Only the cash, he'll still have the empty wallet. :lol:

The wallet is starting to smolder... if it survives, it will be rather blackened about the edges, with melted plastic within! :cry::confused:;)