PDA

View Full Version : I've got some dosh- What to buy



swoffa
6th July 2009, 01:26 PM
Woohoo !

I've just come into some dosh and think its a good time to update the kit lens.
I have the canon 40D and last year picked up the 70-200 f4 as well as the nifty fifty.

My biggest problem is I read to much and want the best I can get. Due to this I've narrowed my "want" to the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4 IS. I thought about the 17-85 f4-5.6 and although that would suit perfect for my ideal 2 lens bag, the reviews give it some issues, and I'm back to believing too much what I read and head for the red rings again.

I don't see myself going full frame in the foreseeable future so that point is mute for the moment.
If I go with 24-105 then I'm crossing ranges a bit with my other lens. Does anyone find this causes a lens to become a little redundant? I do love my white lens.
How good does 2.8 sound, but is it worth another 500 bucks. It also limits a bit from the walk around lens perspective. Another 35 mm there can always be helpful.

I'm like a fish out of water flopping about on the decision. Any thoughts from you guys/gals would be very helpful.

Even if it's spend the money on a photography course :)

forno
6th July 2009, 01:35 PM
I have 10-22, 17-55 f/2.8IS & 70-200 f/2.8IS and its a greta combo IMO, the small gap between 55&70 isnt so bad in reality.


Life begins at f/2.8:p

forno
6th July 2009, 01:35 PM
Course would be good too

swoffa
6th July 2009, 02:11 PM
Course would be good too

so you seen some of my photo's then.... :)

forno
6th July 2009, 03:41 PM
so you seen some of my photo's then.... :)l

LOL, no. I did a course at CAE in Flinders street, was not bad. For me I found it a bit basic(without trying to sound like I know everything), however it is good to validate what you have learnt by trial and error

kyte
6th July 2009, 05:15 PM
Woohoo !
....

It also limits a bit from the walk around lens perspective. Another 35 mm there can always be helpful.



I had the same thing (coming into some dosh... in my case it was a partial LSL payout, and its also bought me an iphone and a crumpler $6M home for the camera and lenses).

I've chosen to go with the Tamron 18-250. Its a compromise... but I really did want a walkabout lens to cover most if not all my normal shooting habits. I'll become more circumspect later but I haven't yet really established what kind of photography I really want to do... when I do, I'll be into primes etc. For now, though, I don't much care that I have crossed with my kit 18-55 and the other tammy 70-300. One lens for now, plenty of time to go better later.

Danoss
6th July 2009, 05:16 PM
It looks like you've put some serious thought into which part of the focal range you think sorely needs filling.

Out of the ones you suggested, I would suggest getting the 24-70 f/2.8L. The difference in quality between that and the 24-105 is huge. Once you experience the f/2.8, the f/4 will feel like a waste of time.

If all you're looking for is a nudge towards the 24-70, consider this it. If you can afford L glass, get it.

Oh and don't forget that renting is an option. If you can't decide between lenses, go rent the highest contenders, take them out for a weekend and see which you like better. It costs a little more to make that decision, but at least you know you'll be happy with it

kyte
6th July 2009, 08:33 PM
Oh and don't forget that renting is an option. If you can't decide between lenses, go rent the highest contenders, take them out for a weekend and see which you like better. It costs a little more to make that decision, but at least you know you'll be happy with it

Where can you rent lenses??? (capital cities only I guess)... what a fabulous idea!

Danoss
6th July 2009, 09:06 PM
Where can you rent lenses??? (capital cities only I guess)... what a fabulous idea!
I haven't personally done it but, a mate of mine does, I don't recall the place he uses though. It came in handy when he needed some extra gear for the odd special occasion, e.g. wedding.

Quick googling comes up with these guys here for example: Camera Hire Australia (http://www.camerahire.com.au/). Looks like they will deliver around Australia also. There are quite a number of these places around.

swoffa
6th July 2009, 10:37 PM
thanks for the thoughts guys.

I am after a nudge. Just can't decide which way I want to be pushed.

Is there really that big a difference between the 24-70 and 24-105. This review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) places the ~105 pretty highly and is the main reason I'm looking at these two lenses.

My 70-200 is an L lens and I love it. It's the lens that stays on my camera most of the time. Who'd have thought I'd be happy to have a red ring.

canonafficionado
6th July 2009, 10:57 PM
Wish I could help Swoffa, but I still have much to learn about lenses.

One think that struck me is that you haven't mentioned what type of photographs you want to take, or have I completely missed it?

Maybe that could help bring in some more thoughts. Also is it possible to easily check the exact lense used through examples of photos that you particularly like on Flickr?

(I know you can search via camera already not sure about lens searches)

SilverJ
6th July 2009, 11:19 PM
If I were you, i'd figure out what you like shooting the most and then what mm range is best for that type of work. Read up on reviews and go on flickr to look at pictures taken with that lens. Next buy the best lens you can afford in that mm range. Might seem kind of obvious perhaps but I use it for my process of elimination. Also, try the Scott Kelby books and his website. He is primarily a Nikon fan, but he does talk about Canon glass too and obviously a lot of photography tips are universal to the different brands.

I'm going to buy the 70-200mm 2.8L IS next week. Going to hurt but hopefully i'll be in awe and inspired to shoot and shoot with it. They're not cheap, but I see glass purchases as investments in what will become more of a career crossover one day for me from Graphic Design to Photography.

silversurfer161
7th July 2009, 12:56 AM
If I were you, i'd figure out what you like shooting the most and then what mm range is best for that type of work.

Agreed. Also are you gonna use the extra speed of the 70? If you're never gonna use the extra speed of the 24-70, you'd be better off getting the 24-105, as it's cheaper, lighter, and has IS.
I haven't tried the 105, but the 70 is a very nice lens... Would thoroughly recommend it if you're not so concerned about cost or weight...

kyte
8th July 2009, 05:55 AM
I haven't personally done it but, a mate of mine does, I don't recall the place he uses though. It came in handy when he needed some extra gear for the odd special occasion, e.g. wedding.

Quick googling comes up with these guys here for example: Camera Hire Australia (http://www.camerahire.com.au/). Looks like they will deliver around Australia also. There are quite a number of these places around.

Thanks for that, pretty expensive but I understand why that is. Its almost a temptation to hire a 500D + lens for a weekend and see how it goes. I'm a pentaxian, but am considering alternatives :-/

forno
8th July 2009, 07:14 AM
1. 24mm is pretty wide for a crop body.
2. You will use 2.8, if not for speed, then for depth of field.
3. Dont confuse IS for lens speed, it works only for panning and still subjects in low light.
4. IS + f/2.8 is a magical combination.
5 Dont confuse the 17-55 2.8 is with the 17-85.
6 Try and get a constant aperture zoom, except UWA zooms

I tried a friends 24-70 back to back with my 17-55 and was amazed at how close it was in all aspects, it was only marginally softer at 2.8, everywhere else it was line ball, plus IS and the focal length is better for a crop camera walkaround lens IMO

joshm
9th July 2009, 11:20 AM
If you are not going full-frame in the future, then without a doubt the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the way to go.

I know the red ring is tempting, but there's no advantages to getting the 24-70 or 24-105 over the 17-55, since you already have the 70-200. You don't seem to have any interest in going wider, but the difference between 17 and 24mm is quite significant. The 17-55 is sharp as a tack, even at f/2.8, and the IS is fantastic.

For reference, I have had the 17-55 for a number of years, upgrading to that from the 17-85. I am only just now moving away from it as I have gone to full-frame, and yes, the 24-105, but more so I use just a 50mm prime.

chris
11th July 2009, 11:55 AM
I have both the 24-105 and the 24-70. I use the 24-105 for travel and the 24-70 for just about everything else. That said - I shoot full frame. If you are going to stay crop go with the 17-55 2.8IS - it is a no brainer if you are ok with crop bodies and you can always sell it with your crop body if you ever move up to full frame.

Analog6
11th July 2009, 01:10 PM
It totally depends on what type of photography you do. Get onto a good photo forum and see what other people who do 'your type of photos' have. Most of them list their gear under their siggies so you can see what they are using. Go along to a camera store (even if you plan to buy online) and heft the things and ask for it to be put on a camera so you can see how fast a lens focusses, if it feels good in the hand etc.

No one can decide for you, you've got to make up your own mind.

I have a 20D & 30D and Canon 70-200 f4L, 100-400L, Sigma 24-70 f2.8, and a Cosina 19-35 f3.5. I've also got a Hasselblad 553elx and a 150mm lens. Bit of a mixed bag but so's my photography.

scottgrot
14th July 2009, 09:15 PM
Woohoo !

I've just come into some dosh and think its a good time to update the kit lens.
I have the canon 40D and last year picked up the 70-200 f4 as well as the nifty fifty.

My biggest problem is I read to much and want the best I can get. Due to this I've narrowed my "want" to the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4 IS. I thought about the 17-85 f4-5.6 and although that would suit perfect for my ideal 2 lens bag, the reviews give it some issues, and I'm back to believing too much what I read and head for the red rings again.

I don't see myself going full frame in the foreseeable future so that point is mute for the moment.
If I go with 24-105 then I'm crossing ranges a bit with my other lens. Does anyone find this causes a lens to become a little redundant? I do love my white lens.
How good does 2.8 sound, but is it worth another 500 bucks. It also limits a bit from the walk around lens perspective. Another 35 mm there can always be helpful.

I'm like a fish out of water flopping about on the decision. Any thoughts from you guys/gals would be very helpful.

Even if it's spend the money on a photography course :)


Either way they are great lenses. I don't think that there is a "wrong" decision. I was in a dilemma wanting to replace my 17-85. I ended up with the 24-105.

I also have the 10-22, and 70-300. I figure that when I want to go wide, I will really want to go wide.

I have used the 24-105 a little and I really like it (I haven't had the time to play with it as much as I'd like). The extra reach, for me anyway, is great for the walk around lens.

Again, you will have a great lens which ever you choose. Next time you are cashed up, buy the other lens that you didn't buy this time around.

swoffa
23rd July 2009, 12:59 PM
Well I went and bought the 24-70 after all that. OMG it's fast (and quiet). The af is locked before you can say .....well you just don't have time.

Looking forward to the weekend to rip off a few shots in the daylight.

I also bought a lowepro Lens case No2. All up $1875. Pretty happy with that. Got some mula left over to hunt for an HD Hoya filter now.

Thanks everyone for your input. Much appreciated.