Jaell
05-28-2009, 11:40 AM
This site is like heaven for me, and now that I found the forums, I'm even happier.
Background: before the digital age, I shot film with various bodies from an old indestructible AE-1 to an Elan. Forgot what my lens lineup used to be, because I sold it all off years ago (had a 135mm prime, a 100-300mm zoom, a 50mm prime, among others). Used to shoot kodachrome & later velvia. Long story short, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I went digital when the Rebel XT came out--was a low-cost experiment, and I've really enjoyed the results. But I retain habits from the film age: invest in good lenses; bodies come and go. So I've stuck with the XT has various new models have come out; I've lusted after full-frame bodies (the x0D series doesn't interest me a bit) and eventually will pull the trigger on the latest version of the 5D. But I need to re-build my lens kit first, and that's where my funds get allocated (I'm finishing my PhD, so I don't make much money; any purchases have to be approved by my "accountant"....er, wife).
I shoot primarily outdoors. Landscapes, photojournalism-ish stuff, some wildlife. I got into photography as a kid in 4-H using my dad's old Ricoh & kodachrome to shoot flowers, so I really, really enjoy macro nature photography.
So the new t1i is out, and it's a substantial upgrade from my XT at a pretty digestible price. I currently have the 24-105mm L, and soon after I get the t1i, I'm going to pick up the 100mm macro. After that, my next purchase will likely be the f/2.8 70-200mm IS L, though I lust after a wider zoom like the 17-40mm L (or the 17-55 EF-S or 10-22 EF-S, as I'll be using the 1.6 bodies for a long while yet), too.
One last bit of background: years ago, my brother (a rehabilitated pro photographer) used to shoot IR film, and I was totally blown away by it. So when I get the t1i, I'm sending my XT out to be converted to IR.
Anyway, given all that background, here's the question I'm asking: I'll have two bodies and one lens. The IR will be used 90% for landscapes, and maybe 10% for random portraiture. Given that I'm committed to getting a macro lens, and after that I need a longer (than 105mm) zoom--one that will cost more than the macro & my 24-105mm combined--I should probably opt for a 50mm prime, right? But that's pretty long considering the fovcf on the XT?
The 28mm f/2.8 would be a better landscape lens, I think, as a default. And it's cheap. And if I need a longer lens for any reason, then I can just switch out. But the review of the 28mm f/2.8 isn't very enthusiastic... though shooting daylight landscapes, I'll be stopping down and most of the negatives about the 28mm f/2.8 have to do with shooting wide open.
I'm talking myself into the 28mm f/2.8, but then, the kit lens for the t1i isn't bad, and at this point would only add $32 to the cost of the camera.
So, between:
28mm f/2.8 (~$200)
50mm f/1.4 (~$400)
EF-S 18-55 kit (~$32)
Which sounds best for my needs (the lens that stays on the IR-converted XT for landscape photography until/unless I need to use a longer lens for whatever reason)? I'm not considering either of the 35mm primes--one's too expensive and the other is too poor. I guess the big question comes down to: is the image quality of the 28mm f/2.8 significantly better than the EF-S 18-55? If it weren't for the lukewarm review here, I'd say "of course; primes in the same length/price range are always going to be better." But I dunno.
Sorry for the novel, and thanks for your feedback.
Background: before the digital age, I shot film with various bodies from an old indestructible AE-1 to an Elan. Forgot what my lens lineup used to be, because I sold it all off years ago (had a 135mm prime, a 100-300mm zoom, a 50mm prime, among others). Used to shoot kodachrome & later velvia. Long story short, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I went digital when the Rebel XT came out--was a low-cost experiment, and I've really enjoyed the results. But I retain habits from the film age: invest in good lenses; bodies come and go. So I've stuck with the XT has various new models have come out; I've lusted after full-frame bodies (the x0D series doesn't interest me a bit) and eventually will pull the trigger on the latest version of the 5D. But I need to re-build my lens kit first, and that's where my funds get allocated (I'm finishing my PhD, so I don't make much money; any purchases have to be approved by my "accountant"....er, wife).
I shoot primarily outdoors. Landscapes, photojournalism-ish stuff, some wildlife. I got into photography as a kid in 4-H using my dad's old Ricoh & kodachrome to shoot flowers, so I really, really enjoy macro nature photography.
So the new t1i is out, and it's a substantial upgrade from my XT at a pretty digestible price. I currently have the 24-105mm L, and soon after I get the t1i, I'm going to pick up the 100mm macro. After that, my next purchase will likely be the f/2.8 70-200mm IS L, though I lust after a wider zoom like the 17-40mm L (or the 17-55 EF-S or 10-22 EF-S, as I'll be using the 1.6 bodies for a long while yet), too.
One last bit of background: years ago, my brother (a rehabilitated pro photographer) used to shoot IR film, and I was totally blown away by it. So when I get the t1i, I'm sending my XT out to be converted to IR.
Anyway, given all that background, here's the question I'm asking: I'll have two bodies and one lens. The IR will be used 90% for landscapes, and maybe 10% for random portraiture. Given that I'm committed to getting a macro lens, and after that I need a longer (than 105mm) zoom--one that will cost more than the macro & my 24-105mm combined--I should probably opt for a 50mm prime, right? But that's pretty long considering the fovcf on the XT?
The 28mm f/2.8 would be a better landscape lens, I think, as a default. And it's cheap. And if I need a longer lens for any reason, then I can just switch out. But the review of the 28mm f/2.8 isn't very enthusiastic... though shooting daylight landscapes, I'll be stopping down and most of the negatives about the 28mm f/2.8 have to do with shooting wide open.
I'm talking myself into the 28mm f/2.8, but then, the kit lens for the t1i isn't bad, and at this point would only add $32 to the cost of the camera.
So, between:
28mm f/2.8 (~$200)
50mm f/1.4 (~$400)
EF-S 18-55 kit (~$32)
Which sounds best for my needs (the lens that stays on the IR-converted XT for landscape photography until/unless I need to use a longer lens for whatever reason)? I'm not considering either of the 35mm primes--one's too expensive and the other is too poor. I guess the big question comes down to: is the image quality of the 28mm f/2.8 significantly better than the EF-S 18-55? If it weren't for the lukewarm review here, I'd say "of course; primes in the same length/price range are always going to be better." But I dunno.
Sorry for the novel, and thanks for your feedback.