Totally lost...help please

[saqib]

I have a 10D that I just use for fun - not pro as some of you obviously are.

The main pictures I take are landscapes/cityscapes and architecture/buildings, as well as of my neices and nephews etc. I currently have:

1) 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM
2) 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

and that's all. I am looking to get some new lenses kinda soonish - a friend has asked me to take pictures at their wedding reception in August, but I am travelling to Istanbul for the historical buildings eg Saint Sofia and Blue Mosque etc etc in late June.

So I am totally confused as to which lens to buy. I love the whole 'blurred background' (?bokeh) that I sometimes get with some of the pictures of the kids, but I want more, so I figure a lens with a nice wide aperture.

But then I also start thinking it would be nice to have a lens for the cityscapes/sunsets that also have a wide aperture, which would be immensely useful when it comes to the sun rising or setting over Istanbul.

Also, how much of a difference does non-USM make to battery life?

I am hmm-ing and aah-ing about the 50 f1.4 USM, but again I am getting thrown off by talk on some of the threads re. bad bokeh. So then I think the 85 f2.8, which would hopefully/theoretically be faster than the 28-105 at the same setting (I am guessing it would give something like f4 as opposed to f2.8?). Then I start to think why get just the fixed 85 when I have the option of getting a zoom with a wide aperture? Ugg. So confusing.

Can any kind soul please help me out? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top? Any info would be greatly appreciated, esp if you can suggest specific lenses. I tried going to the BIGGEST place in town, but they had like one lens (the 50) and nothing to compare it against, which kinda sucked, and I not willing to part with money until I know what I am getting is what I actually want.

Incidently, my overall budget is say around £5-600 (roughly $1k).
Saqib.

[johneric8]

I have a 10D that I just use for fun - not pro as some of you obviously are.

The main pictures I take are landscapes/cityscapes and architecture/buildings, as well as of my neices and nephews etc. I currently have:

1) 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM
2) 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

and that's all. I am looking to get some new lenses kinda soonish - a friend has asked me to take pictures at their wedding reception in August, but I am travelling to Istanbul for the historical buildings eg Saint Sofia and Blue Mosque etc etc in late June.

So I am totally confused as to which lens to buy. I love the whole 'blurred background' (?bokeh) that I sometimes get with some of the pictures of the kids, but I want more, so I figure a lens with a nice wide aperture.

But then I also start thinking it would be nice to have a lens for the cityscapes/sunsets that also have a wide aperture, which would be immensely useful when it comes to the sun rising or setting over Istanbul.

Also, how much of a difference does non-USM make to battery life?

I am hmm-ing and aah-ing about the 50 f1.4 USM, but again I am getting thrown off by talk on some of the threads re. bad bokeh. So then I think the 85 f2.8, which would hopefully/theoretically be faster than the 28-105 at the same setting (I am guessing it would give something like f4 as opposed to f2.8?). Then I start to think why get just the fixed 85 when I have the option of getting a zoom with a wide aperture? Ugg. So confusing.

Can any kind soul please help me out? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top? Any info would be greatly appreciated, esp if you can suggest specific lenses. I tried going to the BIGGEST place in town, but they had like one lens (the 50) and nothing to compare it against, which kinda sucked, and I not willing to part with money until I know what I am getting is what I actually want.

Incidently, my overall budget is say around £5-600 (roughly $1k).
Saqib.


Sell all your gear and get a camera phone! they take better pictures then what you have right now. Trust me pick up a nokia camera phone with the optional battery grip and some great nokia interchangeble lenses.

[Dante King]

10-22 EFS USM. Great for landscapes and scenes you are sure to find in Turkey! Or the Tonika 12-24 seems nice too. Would not be too hot for wedding pics.

I love my 50 1.4 AND 85 1.8 Great for wedding type shots, fast and I find the bokeh very nice. The 135L is a great chunk of glass and would be nice as well.

Well thats my 2.5 cents. Good luck hunting

[Jarrad]

Since EF-s Lenses won't work on your 10D I'd have to suggest you get the EF 17-40mm f4L. I know it's not the fastest lens, but the 16-35 f2.8 is way out of your budget and is creeping a little short for some your wedding needs.

17-40 f4L
85 f1.8

That's about $1020 US

Maybe sell your other lenses and pick up a 70-200 f4L if you can.

:)

[tim]

For landscape photos you don't really need a wide aperture lens, since you'll most likely be using a tripod and stopping the lens down to F8 or so anyway. For wedding photography a nice fast lens is a good idea, either the 85 F1.8 or the 50mm F1.4 would be good, and both have good bokeh.

You might also like to read this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75678). There's recommendations in there for equipment which will help you take better photos, including an external flash, flash bracket, diffuser, and misc other stuff.

[Lesmac]

! would also recommend the 17-40L for landscapes, it's a peach of a lens. If you are going to Turkey, I would also suggest a polarizer.
Some photos of Turkey taken with this lens (on a 10D) in my gallery

Les

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[saqib]

Sell all your gear and get a camera phone! they take better pictures then what you have right now. Trust me pick up a nokia camera phone with the optional battery grip and some great nokia interchangeble lenses.

um....ok.

[saqib]

Thanks for all your help guys (am on call hence late reply).

Some more help if that's ok - Jarrad what do you think about the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX HSM? Would you recommend this one or not so much?

Also, when I said about the wedding shots, I am just going to do some candid shots - nothing really formal if you know what I mean. People meeting and hugging etc. My main concern is getting nice shots of my neices and nephews, without having to use the flash (i HATE flash!), and I figured that the same lens would do for the wedding?

Tim - as far as the tripod shots for the landscapes, why would you use f8? I just find it really hard to capture the amazing colors at sunset, and I figured a 2.8 would be better?

Thanks again guys,
Saqib.

[Jarrad]

Jarrad what do you think about the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX HSM? Would you recommend this one or not so much?


First of all, I've never used this lens, so I can speak only on what I've read about it and seen from it.
I've considered this lens for myself in the past and Decided that I wouldn't buy it.
The Main complaint seems to be that it's far too soft at 17mm and wide open. So, while 17mm and f2.8 looks tempting, it's really not usable until f5.6. And even then the shaprness doesn't seem very impressive.

The New DG version might be better. I haven't really researched it yet.

Sorry :(


Also, when I said about the wedding shots, I am just going to do some candid shots - nothing really formal if you know what I mean. People meeting and hugging etc. My main concern is getting nice shots of my neices and nephews, without having to use the flash (i HATE flash!), and I figured that the same lens would do for the wedding?


This is why so many people are rocommending lenses in the f1.4-1.8 range. A flash is usually a good idea, but when you don't want to use one or don't have one you need the wide apertures so you'll have enough usable ambient lighting for the shot (with raised ISO, of course). I recomended the 85 f1.8 so you wouldn't have to get in too close to take shots of family and friends. It's great for portraits. Very Sharp.


As far as the tripod shots for the landscapes, why would you use f8? I just find it really hard to capture the amazing colors at sunset, and I figured a 2.8 would be better?


For landscapes one generally wants to have enough depth of field in a shot to have the entire frame appear in focus. Of course every landscape shot is different, but lets say, for instance, that you wanted to shoot at f2.8 & 17mm. With your camera body the closest that you could have in focus would be about 9' from your camera. If you're on elevated ground and there's no ground in sight in the frame for over 10' that's perfectly fine.

On the other hand, If you wanted to have a rock in the foreground that's only 3' away appear in focus, as well as all the way to infinity the depth of field in f2.8 wouldn't be enough. You'd have to stop down to f9 (focus on about 5'6" away) and then you'd have from about 3'-infinity appear to be in focus.

(All of this was assuming you wouldn't be printing any larger than 8"x12")

The Fomula to figure this out is called "hyperfocal distance". The Formula is: Focal Length (Squared), divided by (Aperture multiplied by Circle of Confusion).

FL^ / (Ap x CoC) = HfD

I'm sure there is a far better explaination somewhere else in the forums. You can search for it.

Anyway, obviously the more you stop down the longer your exposure will be. That's why you'll be needing a tripod for many landscape shots. Another reason you might want to stop down is because most lenses aren't at their sharpest wide open.


I hope that helps. :)

[saqib]

Wowzer. That's brilliant buddy - appreciate it tremendously.

So now the job of selling my old lenses and buying all the ones recommended up above.

So the 85 is in my future. But meantime I gotta find somebody selling the 17-40 on ebay in time for the Turkey trip :). Plus, now looking to sell my old lenses - anybody interested?

You guys out stateside get such better prices - everything in my neck of the woods retails for the same price in £ that it is in $ - so that $1k is £1k, a little outta my league. Sux.

[saqib]

So i got back from the trip all ok. Was neat. Dunno if I would ever go back again tho - just felt like the people were there to rip me off. In fact, I pretty much know they were.

Anyways, I got the 17-40 and also the 70-200 2.8, as well as the 85 1.8. During the trip tho I was seriously missing the 40-70 gap, and so got the 24-70 and sold the 17-40 (£400 just for an extra (and slower) 7mm is just too hard to justify). Now I am just all peachy. I think eventually I will get around to getting a really wide angle - like the 10-22, but alas I would need a 20D for that.

Maybe next year when they release the 30 or something eh? Anybody know if Canon have any plans for a wideangle like the 10-22 that is not EFS?

If anybody is interested, you can see some of the prictures from the trip at http://www.photoboxgallery.com/saqib.

Appreciate some input.

Incidently Jarrad - would you recommend a trip to BC in Winter/New Year (mainly for photos)? I usually end up spending the new year in Toronto drinking Starbucks and Timmy Ho's, but figure I would do something maybe a little different this year.

Thanks,
Saqib.