What to do...!?

Hi guys, I am at an absolute loss of what to do right now. I got college paid off for this semester and found out I have a spare chunk of pocket change (albeit a comparatively small one).

Which of these four things would help me improve my skills as a relatively new photographer on a tight budget? Most of my interests include birds, aircraft, wildlife, and macro. I do little portrait work and no sports. My current equipment is in my sig.

Thanks! If someone has an idea for me that I didn't list, please let me know.

How about being more specific on the budget than "spare chunk of pocket change"?

Patriks7 wrote in post #8513680
How about being more specific on the budget than "spare chunk of pocket change"?

Well, the max would be the cost of the 100mm macro, so under 600 dollars for sure. I'm not entirely convinced that I want to spend it all right now... though using my friend's macro would change my mind fast.

Kiwikat wrote in post #8513666
Most of my interests include birds, aircraft, wildlife,

With this I'd say save for the zoom.

For me the macro lens is a great all around lens. I use it for macro, nature and even portraits and gigs (band.) I couldn't shoot without it some days.

The tripod is a good investment too. I have a real cheap one and it works for what I need it for, otherwise it sits at home. But depending on what you shoot it'll help get sharp images.

Since 3 of your interests are birds, aircraft & wildlife you need a long telephoto. You also have the 100-400 L in your wish list but that is out of your budget. You list macro as an interest and the 100 F/2.8 would certainly work perfectly for that and fit your budget.
But we don't know your priority levels. Would you be satisfied giving up the 3 others? Will you be able to save up for a good tele zoom later and satisfy those needs? What's more important?
An off camera flash like the 430ex would improve your skills as a photography learning OCF but you don't have an interest in portraiture But it would certainly improve your knowledge of light and you could start on that with a cheap manual flash.

Not much help, is it?

The thing about the 100-400 is that I wouldn't have the money for it until after tax returns next year at the earliest. Any of the other three I could afford now and use it for the time being.

Wisconsin has a beautiful autumn. Maybe a wide angle should be on my list? Like the Tokina 12-24...

Gah! This is the worst part of the hobby and owning a DSLR. I just love my camera though.

I think most of us here agree that this kid needs a flash? Amirite?

If he shoots mostly wildlife, birds and nature he doesn't need a flash. I think that would be my last choice out of the choices here.

Kiwikat wrote in post #8513666
Most of my interests include birds, aircraft, wildlife, and macro. I do little portrait work and no sports

Omaru wrote in post #8513881
I think most of us here agree that this kid needs a flash? Amirite?

how does what he shoot=flash to you?


seeing as how you have the 55-250mm already...you can use that while saving for a longer lens, and it'll force you to try and get closer, well at least to the wildlife/birds, airshows you're stuck where you are...i think i'd go with the 100mm macro, you don't really have anything that'll give you that in your gear, and it is a really fun lens...however i think you may find it hard to use without a flash...

Most of the things you are doing are mostly outdoors during the daytime. A flash is good if your doing a lot of portraits, if not get the 100 macro. Afterall, you did mention you like to shoot macro.

DreDaze wrote in post #8514403
how does what he shoot=flash to you?


seeing as how you have the 55-250mm already...you can use that while saving for a longer lens, and it'll force you to try and get closer, well at least to the wildlife/birds, airshows you're stuck where you are...i think i'd go with the 100mm macro, you don't really have anything that'll give you that in your gear, and it is a really fun lens...however i think you may find it hard to use without a flash...

My bad, didn't really read, that he was into wildlife, birding.

But my suggestion still stands. He should try something new.

If you can't get on the sunny side of the creature, or are shooting up through branches with a backlit sky causing massive contrast, and putting your subject in shadow, then a flash and a Better Beamer may well be an attractive option.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​better_beamer.shtml

I have a BB on my birthday wishlist and hope to get one next month.

As for macro, I get by pretty well with Kenko macro tubes attached to various of my lenses. I suspect a dedicated macro might have an edge in convenience but, if counting pennies, I can see tubes + flash + BB being an attractive mix. As for the tripod, if the current one does "OK" then the other things will probably round out the kit list better.

That "Better Beamer" looks interesting. Do you think a 430ex II would be powerful enough to make any use of that though? I could see a 580 doing well with it, but I'm not sure that the 430 would have enough reach. Could anyone confirm or deny this?

I love my 55-250... it rarely leaves my camera. It looks like right now its between the 100mm macro and 430 II flash unit. However as someone mentioned, if I get into macro like I think I would, I'd need a better flash unit. I have used the onboard flash a little bit but am never satisfied with the look it gives. I'm sure bouncing a 430 would be a whole lot better.

Perhaps I'll go with a flash and tripod before the end of the year, then get the macro after tax returns. I'll have to wait on a longer lens.

If we do the maths, the Guide Number of the 430EX is 43m. At 100 ISO and f/5.6 that would give you "full" illumination of a subject at a range of 7.7m, when shooting with a longish lens (100mm or more). If you bumped the ISO by 2 stops,to 400, the range would double to 15m. If what they say about the BB is true you should gain another 2 stops (perhaps more) which would double the range again to 30m. Since you don't want full power flash for "fill" you would only want the flash to be maybe -1 stop or so. That would increase the range even further to 42m or 138', perhaps more if you wanted less fill.

For many people that would be some very useful flash reach.

(I hope I have my maths right.)

I guess this is a pretty stupid question, but do birds mind being flashed?

Poor things, they don't call it a "cannon" for nothin'.