Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 18 Apr 2015 (Saturday) 09:54
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Misery...

 
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
Apr 18, 2015 09:54 |  #1

Misery...

Ok, I'm like a lot of folks...a very limited budget. I've started halving up the ramen noodle cakes...half for breakfast and half for supper. When the budget improves I will be adding water to them... :rolleyes:

Well, maybe it's not really *that* bad, but it's tight.

The situation is that I have a very bad case of GAS. The sad thing about GAS is that it's really only possible to treat the condition...there is no cure it. My treatment is limited by the above mentioned noodle situation.

Bottom line... I'm looking for a new lens, not just any lens but the last lens that I will be able to buy for a *long* time...

My current lenses are:

14mm f/2.8 Samyang (Used little, but haven't really had time to get it out where I want to...in the swamp.)
50mm f/1.8 MKI (used sporadically for portraits)
85mm f/1.8 (this appears to be replacing the 50mm, I love the IQ.)
100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-L) (used mostly for...macro, but not shooting a lot of that currently, but still intersted.)
28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron (my walk-around lens)

Of these, I most frequently use the 28-75mm and the 85mm, with the zoom on my camera most of the time. Some days I hang the 85mm in an attempt to "see" that focal length...also, if I'm shooting portraits. I really like the IQ of the 85mm.

I'm a hobbyist. Life has me stretched out right now trying to put food on the table (those noodles are expensive!) so I'm not getting to spend a lot of time shooting but hopefully I'll figure that out soon. ;-)a The bulk of my shooting involves my grandchildren or events at the church I attend...lots of people shots. As for non-human images they're scattered all over the map...landscapes, still life, flowers, critters, etc.,. No rhyme or reason...I'm still trying to find my crack in the rock to hang out in.

As for lenses, I also have a small assortment of old Nikkor lenses. A while back I put a 135mm f/2.8 Nikkor Q on my 6D and shot some images of my grandchildren as they were playing and I liked the results...somewhat. Focus confirmation isn't the same thing as AF so I had a lot of "almosts" with a few keepers. Also, a bit of CA involved. But, that got me to looking at (and following) the lengthy 135mm f2 thread here on the forum. The images are great (understatement)!!! So my GAS has been "moving" towards the 135mm F2. I'm enamored by the image quality of this lens. It will accept an extender (we used to call them tele-converters) so I could get a little more reach later on.

But, being on the limited ramen noodle budget I have to think...versatility. Would my money be better invested in a longer zoom? Specifically one of the 70-200 offerings. I've decided that if I choose one of these that it will have IS...my hands, arms, body, mind, etc., are not getting any more steady as time progresses. This brings in the debate of the F4 version versus the f2.8 version (with a sub-debate of v1 or v2 for the f2.8 version). The budget strongly favors the price of the F4 and would maybe allow for a 1.4x extender later on. Between the zooms, maybe the F4 IS is more inline with what I need...?? The idea of smaller and lighter appeals to me (those shaky hands, etc.,). But, then there's the noise issue with the F4...is it really bad noise?

So, what I'm looking at are the 135mm f2 L, the 70-200mm f4L IS, and maybe the 70-200mm f2.8L IS (v1 or v2).

But, then there's the wildcard. Since I keep the Tamron on the camera most of the time should I be looking for a better walk-around lens? The 28-75mm Tamron is pretty good, but I know there is better. For some reason, though, I haven't really studied the wider focal length range of zooms...maybe I'm satisfied where I'm at for a walk-around lens? Or, maybe it's simply I'm wanting something with more reach?

I do know that I'm looking for better glass and I *think* it's in the focal lengths mentioned. -?

One last thought, I have a T2i that I might use the "new" lens on at times, but I see it being used on the 6D much more often. I would sell the T2i, but it's a good camera and just doesn't bring much when selling...I'm hanging on to it as a back-up.

Well, this was more of a novel than a post. Maybe I just needed to write my thoughts down...kinda like therapy (without the electricity) or something. So, if you're still with me at this point feel free to give me counseling, recommendations, thoughts, money, gold bullion, precious gems, or simply an understanding nod of the head followed by a deep sigh...they're all appreciated.

So I'm sitting here flip-flopping like a blue-gill in the bottom of a john boat trying to figure out what to do. I can't sleep at night, my dog is confused and keeps his distance, and my wife keeps looking at me worriedly when she sees me walking around with this blank look in my eyes muttering like Amos McCoy.

This decision is killin' me...it's misery I tell ya!!!! :eek:

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
MakisM1's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Apr 18, 2015 10:35 |  #2

If I understand it right, you have a T2i, a 6D and the assortment of lenses you described. In additiion, you have a severe case of GAS :-D.

The cure is not another lens, or body. The cure is to go out and shoot.

I'd suggest, if I may, to look at the photo sharing forums and for each one of the subforums, pick 3 threads as project subjects. These projects don't have to be separated from your normal activities (for instance portraits off your church choir members can fit in People, or Family Events or Performing Arts). Architectural details of your church can also go to Architectural, and so on.

Write your goals on a page, then for each project write a plan and go and execute. Post the photos on the respective forums and try to improve through C&C.

At the end of a cycle, it will be evident which lens you want. Hopefully, by that stage you will have saved the money for it! :-D

Have fun!

PS: I started with the 60D and the 18-200. Although I bought other lenses in the process, I can still go off (and I have) on vacation with the 60D/18-200/8-16 and not feel limited.


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

LOG IN TO REPLY
Echo63
Goldmember
Echo63's Avatar
2,858 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Perth - Western Australia - Earth
Apr 18, 2015 10:59 |  #3

Honestly - if i were in your position, i would be spending the money on stuff i needed (like water for the Ramen :p) and not gear.

You have a pretty good kit, although it does lack a little on the long end.

get out, use the gear you have, and when you have any spare cash, put it aside.

when you have enough spare cash to buy the lenses you are looking at, look seriously at the gear you have, how much you have used it in that time, and where the problems in your current lineup are - do you hate the Tamron ? Do you wish you had a longer telephoto ? Do you wish you had an autofocus 135 ?

if you have lenses you aren't using anymore, get rid of them too, put the money in to the new lens too.


My Best Imageswww.echo63.deviantart.​comexternal link
Gear listhttp://photography-on-the.net ...p?p=2463426&postcou​nt=385

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,269 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
Apr 18, 2015 11:35 |  #4

Macro lenses' purpose is to provide


  1. optimum performance even at very close focus distances (not merely at distances beyond 3')
  2. flat field (for copy of documents and other flat pieces)
  3. continuous operation from 0.3m to infinity (without stopping to fit/remove extension tube).


One could debate the real NEED for all three benefits, and simply use a conventional non-macro optic with an extension tube, particularly if one is not a real macro afficianado. So you might consider getting rid of the 100mm macro lens in order to finance some other lens of greater utility for you. Paticularly since you also own the 28-75mm f/2.8 which is also a macro focusing lens.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by GeoKras1989. 2 edits done in total.
Apr 18, 2015 12:50 |  #5
banned

My take on your situation is that you do not have G.A.S. You have G.U.S.*, a close cousin that is often confused with G.A.S.. G.U.S. is much less expensive to treat. My first suggestion is to sell the 28-75 and replace it with a 28 1.8 or 24L II. (Ok, I use a 28 1.8, too.) The creativity boost you get from dumping the mid-zoom for (and actually shooting) fast primes will stimulate you to shoot more, and more often. This is the only cure for G.U.S.

If you are using FF only, the 70-200 f/4 will work fine for you, I think. I am aging, not quite gracefully, have two messed up shoulders, CTS, and I can field a non-IS 200mm with few problems. If you use a 70-200 on apsc, you will want the IS version. I cannot successfully field an effectively 320mm lens without IS.

I had the 135L and 85 1.8. I really liked the 135L, but found it expensive for the little I used it. I sold both the 135 and 85, and bought a 100 f/2. My own private compromise, if you will. If you don't use macro much, consider selling the 100 2.8 for the 100 f/2. It is smaller, lighter, 1 stop faster and focuses faster. Financially, it is a wash if you sell the macro.

PM me with your mailing address. I will get a box of cash, gold bullion, and precious gems out just as quick as I can. Keep in mind, that will have no effect on your G.U.S..

*Gear Under-utilization Syndrome


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,269 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 3 edits done in total.
Apr 18, 2015 13:51 |  #6

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17522652external link
My first suggestion is to sell the 28-75 and replace it with a 28 1.8 or 24L II. (Ok, I use a 28 1.8, too.) The creativity boost you get from dumping the mid-zoom for (and actually shooting) fast primes will stimulate you to shoot more, and more often.

I will be the voice of dissent, since getting rid of 28-75mm in order to get a 28mm means the net number of lenses stays the same, and the amount of money tied up in gear is not appreciably changed. And he says the 28-75mm is his most used lens.

Yes, getting rid of it does force the use of other non-used lenses, but it does nothing to address the OP tight budget when the new 28mm has to be purchased in order to have something close to 'normal' FL. And given the utilization of shooting mostly grandchildren, the 28-75mm is a highly beneficial FL range to have


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Apr 18, 2015 14:15 |  #7
banned

Wilt wrote in post #17522703external link
I will be the voice of dissent, since getting rid of 28-75mm in order to get a 28mm means the net number of lenses stays the same, and the amount of money tied up in gear is not appreciably changed. And he says the 28-75mm is his most used lens.

Which I defined as part of the problem. My position stands. I respect your opinion, though.

Yes, getting rid of it does force the use of other non-used lenses, but it does nothing to address the OP tight budget when the new 28mm has to be purchased in order to have something close to 'normal' FL. And given the utilization of shooting mostly grandchildren, the 28-75mm is a highly beneficial FL range to have

I don't know where to start with that second paragraph. It DOES address his tight budget; the 28-75 for 28 1.8 is a financial wash. The 28-75 can't do 1.8. The OP has a 'normal' FL 50mm f/1.8. My approach and subjects closely match the OP; I don't own mid-zoom, and don't see the need for one. A 24-105 would suit his shooting better, but budget constraints don't allow it.


OP states little macro use. Selling macro for a 100 f/2 gets closer to 135L-like results, and costs nothing.
I guess it all depends on preferences, shooting style, and budget. My suggestions suit my style and preferences (grandfather shooting kids), and costs nothing. I believe they suit his style, and certainly address his stated problem. Let's see what he thinks.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,269 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
Apr 18, 2015 14:40 |  #8

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17522729external link
I don't know where to start with that second paragraph. It DOES address his tight budget; the 28-75 for 28 1.8 is a financial wash. The 28-75 can't do 1.8. The OP has a 'normal' FL 50mm f/1.8. My approach and subjects closely match the OP; I don't own mid-zoom, and don't see the need for one. A 24-105 would suit his shooting better, but budget constraints don't allow it.

OP states little macro use. Selling macro for a 100 f/2 gets closer to 135L-like results, and costs nothing.
I guess it all depends on preferences, shooting style, and budget. My suggestions suit my style and preferences (grandfather shooting kids), and costs nothing. I believe they suit his style, and certainly address his stated problem. Let's see what he thinks.

There are no fewer lenses in the kit (i.e., he cannot sell off one low-usage to free up any funds) unless gets rid of 28-75mm and 100mm macro, leaving him no macro capability to experiment with.
The 50mm is NOT a 'normal' ...OP has an APS-C body, and 75mm is a short telephoto.
With ISO 3200, there is not the need for f/1.8 speed like in the days of ISO 400 film!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Apr 18, 2015 15:03 |  #9
banned

Wilt wrote in post #17522756external link
There are no fewer lenses in the kit (i.e., he cannot sell off one low-usage to free up any funds) unless gets rid of 28-75mm and 100mm macro, leaving him no macro capability to experiment with.
The 50mm is NOT a 'normal' ...OP has an APS-C body, and 75mm is a short telephoto.
With ISO 3200, there is not the need for f/1.8 speed like in the days of ISO 400 film!

OP seems to believe he has a 6D and T2i. The 50 1.8 is quite 'normal' on full frame.
A 25mm extension tube and the 50 1.8 make pretty decent macro setup.
OP could sell the T2i for additional funding. On FF, 28-75 is limited use range. Two primes cover it easily, and provide a lot more useable aperture. Select from 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 100. The 28-75 is not known for performance at f/2.8.

I am missing something in your ISO 3200 statement. Generally, when I am using f/1.n, I am near ISO 100 and shooting for thinner DOF and bokeh. ISO 3200+ comes into play more often when I have to shoot stopped down. Again, maybe that is just the difference between how we use our gear.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,816 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Apr 18, 2015 15:16 |  #10

sell off the 100 macro and get the 70-200 f4

TS, you have GAS, but at least you're not a pixel peeper :-P

that's the most deadliest form of GAS.

if you truly want to replace the 28-75, the tamron 24-70 is considerably better, and the canon 24-70ii is even better than that, however it gets quite pricey. TS sounds like a primarily zoom type shooter, I would get the 70-200 first, since that is a large missing gap for kids.


Sony A7rii x2 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,269 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Apr 18, 2015 15:24 |  #11

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17522773external link
OP seems to believe he has a 6D and T2i. The 50 1.8 is quite 'normal' on full frame.
A 25mm extension tube and the 50 1.8 make pretty decent macro setup.
OP could sell the T2i for additional funding. On FF, 28-75 is limited use range. Two primes cover it easily, and provide a lot more useable aperture. Select from 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 100. The 28-75 is not known for performance at f/2.8.

I missed the ownership of 6D. You made a good point about selling the T2i for money.
Yes, I had suggested the extension tube for macro as well.
I still feel that a zoom is far better to keep up with a small storm of grandkids.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17522773external link
I am missing something in your ISO 3200 statement. Generally, when I am using f/1.n, I am near ISO 100 and shooting for thinner DOF and bokeh. ISO 3200+ comes into play more often when I have to shoot stopped down. Again, maybe that is just the difference between how we use our gear.

Low light, high ISO, wide aperture for hand holdable shutter speed. When the fastest film was ISO 400, you had to have f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses...f/1.8 was almost slow!
Even now, with digital and ISO 3200 in the T2i, the noise at ISO 3200 often means that a faster lens with slower ISO, like ISO 800 or 1600, results in a nicer photo than ISO 3200 with f/2.8 lens. So I do agree with you about the benefit of f/1.8, particularly in low light when you otherwise resort to flash to avoid digital noise.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
22,678 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined May 2005
silicon valley
Apr 18, 2015 16:05 as a reply to GeoKras1989's post |  #12

"The 28-75 can't do 1.8."

neither can the 28 1.8! at f2.2 it "maybe" compares with the tamron at f2.8. hardly worth giving up 29mm-75mm for.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 430exII, gitzo 3542, markins Q10, kirk, really right stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Apr 18, 2015 16:24 |  #13
banned

Charlie wrote in post #17522784external link
sell off the 100 macro and get the 70-200 f4

TS, you have GAS, but at least you're not a pixel peeper :-P

that's the most deadliest form of GAS.

if you truly want to replace the 28-75, the tamron 24-70 is considerably better, and the canon 24-70ii is even better than that, however it gets quite pricey. TS sounds like a primarily zoom type shooter, I would get the 70-200 first, since that is a large missing gap for kids.

Nice ideas, but quite invalid for the budget restricted OP.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Apr 18, 2015 16:27 |  #14
banned

Wilt wrote in post #17522797external link
I missed the ownership of 6D. You made a good point about selling the T2i for money.
Yes, I had suggested the extension tube for macro as well.
I still feel that a zoom is far better to keep up with a small storm of grandkids.

Low light, high ISO, wide aperture for hand holdable shutter speed. When the fastest film was ISO 400, you had to have f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses...f/1.8 was almost slow!
Even now, with digital and ISO 3200 in the T2i, the noise at ISO 3200 often means that a faster lens with slower ISO, like ISO 800 or 1600, results in a nicer photo than ISO 3200 with f/2.8 lens. So I do agree with you about the benefit of f/1.8, particularly in low light when you otherwise resort to flash to avoid digital noise.

I am only keeping up with one grandson. Maybe that is why I can get by with primes, mostly.

I remember when ASA 800 film came out! Now I can use my fast f/3.5 70-210! Yippee.

Certainly, what individuals do with gear affects what they want and how they deploy it.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Apr 18, 2015 16:32 |  #15
banned

ed rader wrote in post #17522829external link
"The 28-75 can't do 1.8."

neither can the 28 1.8! at f2.2 it "maybe" compares with the tamron at f2.8. hardly worth giving up 29mm-75mm for.

It may come down to copy variations, but I vehemently disagree with you on this one. Had the 28-75. I'd call it an f/3.5 lens, and more so at the long end. Still have the 28 1.8. Mine is better at f/1.8 (in the center, corners suck at all apertures) than the 28-75 was at f/2.8.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

4,044 views & 3 likes for this thread
Misery...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00113 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is LALALANDING
835 guests, 360 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017