Just a 35 for now??

kidpower wrote in post #2211054
B & H 35 1.4 1, 135

35 2.0 229

50 1.4 315

85 1.8 340

100 macro 390

None of the above prices has the rebate included in them.

Let's not forget to factor in the cost of the hoods which comes with the "L" lenses.

Quote:

eta: but then again I don't want to buy lenses now to have to upgrade them later. I want good stuff so I don't need to upgrade. I'd rather have quality over quantity. If i get the L and throw the 50 in (my CC is now in hiding!), with the rebates from the lens and the camera I'll be paying $85 bucks for the 50.


The lenses you are talking about here are "lifetime" lenses for many/most people. They are excellent lenses.

However. depending on your intended uses/tastes, there are other lenses that may be thought of as an upgrade. The upgrades are top of the line in all respects. Whether they are worth the price difference only you can determine.

don't forget... lenses hold their value VERY well. Even older units like the 50mm f/1.8 MK1 consistantly catch $140-160. I paid 160 for mine, and I paid like $145 for a used 35mm f/2. If you ever feel the need to switch to more expensive lenses then you can get good return on your old glass.

Well I'd never need the 50 L, the 85L is said to be slower focus then the the 1.8 so I'd stick with that one. I worry about the speed of the 35 2.0, that's the only reason I'd consider the L instead, but if the focus speed is the same and print quailty is the same, then no there would be no reason to trade up to the L. The only L I really lust after is the 200. I love the FoV on both the crop and the FF.

Maybe I'll see about getting the 200L, 50 1.4, 35 2.0, the macro, all tubes and TC and the body. As I said I'd only need the 85 1.8 once I get the FF, I don't really like 135, I prefer the 85, 100 and 200 for short teles on FF. I may get the 28 2.8 at some point but not for some time, or until I find I need something wider then the 35, which in film is maybe twice a year. Unless I'm having fun with the perspective of the 17mm I have.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2211313
I worry about the speed of the 35 2.0, that's the only reason I'd consider the L instead, but if the focus speed is the same and print quailty is the same, then no there would be no reason to trade up to the L.

The focus speed between the two 35mm lenses is nowhere near close. The f/2.0 isn't bad or unusable, however. I used it for five years in all kinds of lighting conditions - mostly on a D30, no less. It gets the job done! It has a reputation for being "buzzy" and that's no joke - it is. But who cares? The Nifty is the same way.

As for print quality, both lenses have outstanding resolution. The f/2.0 is a real gem and underrated, IMO. I've always been happy with the shots it produces.

i can't complain about the AF speed on the 35 f/2. I didnt notice a big difference between it and the 50 f/1.4 or the sigma 30 f/1.4. I think you think its slower cause you actually hear the AF motor. Its actually quite fast lock to lock.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2211313
...I don't really like 135, I prefer the 85, 100 and 200 for short teles on FF.

Me too. While I now have a 135L and a 1.4x TC it's for use on a 1.6 crop factor format (20D). It broke my heart to sell the 90mm f/2.5, made by Schneider Optics, I had for my 35mm film system.

OK well I just placed the order! I got the camera, the 50 1.4 and the 35 2.0, with the rebates on the camera and the 50 the 35 was free! Well once I get the check from Canon it's free! I decided to wait on the macro for now. I figured if I fall in love with the camera and get used to it and the lenses quickly, then I'll have until January to get the rebates on the 100 and the 200L.

Thanks for all you help!!

They are very good buys. Glad to see someone here making sensible and cost effective choices for a change. Best of luck with them both. Be good to see some of the shots you take when they arrive.

Just make sure when you get the box you take the forms they give you and fill them out immediately. Make copies of everything and I make a copy of my warranties then tape the barcodes to that sheet with my address stickers on everything and register on-line before sending anything out. I keep all the documentation in a file and if Canon tries to make me mad again, I'm just going to let them have it! Rebates are not fun if you don't get your full refund back.

go on ebay and get yourself a 52mm reverse macro ring adapter. That 35mm lens is BADASS as a reversed macro lens!!! I actually just got that adapter in today for $11 shipped. I can fill the full frame with a fraction of a dime. Check these out!

http://photos.tallmanp​hoto.com/gallery/20382​31

this spider is 4-5mm wide.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2211491
OK well I just placed the order!

enjoy!

That's pretty sweet sirsloop! I've played with extension tubes (somewhat) on the 35mm as well - really nice magnification possible. The working distance is a tad short, but wow. It also works really well with close-up (dioptre) filters which is how I have used it most.

Congrats, gardengirl13! Some great choices there.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2211000
How would it work in a dark bar without a flash?

Why spend all that money just to shoot pics in a dark bar?

Gotta learn how to shoot flash somewhere... might as well be at a place where things happen fast, there are tons of willing (intoxicated) people, and I have no obligations.