A usual photographer's dilemma

Hi Friends..


Since two months now, I am planning to expand my lens collection. (Currently i own a kit efs 18-55 3.5-, 5.6 lens+ efs 10-22 mm with a 450D body; not much to call a collection, duh! ).


Well, well..we all graduate! So the next lens(es) that i am drooling upon are either L or prime or both-no consumer zooms, in short -and in brief as well :o) . And since two months i have done hardly anything but research, research, research-seen at least 20 thousand photographs taken by various lenses; read reviews and users comments until my eyes went de-focused and had to get them re-calibrated; and thought so much that my brain applied for early retirement.


The question i m stumped around is which lenses to buy first. Now, i am from India-where our govt. gets contended by taxing us merely 32 % on lens imports. so a 24-70 f2.8 L that costs $1200 approx in US, goes at some $1800 here. This is indeed boiling my blood since long..and i am afraid soon all of it wud be evaporated, though its a side issue.


The point is that for my next purchase i have a budget of US-$ 1500. And to build a good lense collection I want to start on a right note. So considering the prices and my budget, I have zoomed in to following choices (the prices shown below are prices of lenses in India quoted in US $ equivalent)


Choice 1.


1. Shall I take 70-200 L IS f 4 ($ 1300)+ 35mm f. 2 ($ 300)


Adv. covers the effective focal length (1.6 body) in this way 56 mm+ 112~320 mm
Disadv- 70-200 f 4 IS | it does not.. does not..does not.. does not..create bokeh


Choice 2. Or shall i take 135 L f 2.0 ($1200)+ 35 mm f 2.0 ($ 300)
Adv. Two prime lenses, esp the first one being one of the best L glass canon produces (its like having a threesome on the first date that too when one of the girls is a miss world! )
Disadv: effective coverage. i would be shooting at only two effective lengths- 56mm or 216 mm.


Now here is that I seek advises of sages and seers. So please...let the dams of your suggestions burst open on me.


Heartiest Thanks


Abhinav


P.S - Please note that i am an idiot photographer who does'nt mind swapping
lenses on his camera body for one shot to another; also that i am happy
shooting anything that is worth clickable. Flower, twig, stone, mountain, sky, tree, nails, coins, children, elders, train, bus, road.. etc. etc. etc. )

I like option #1.


10-22, 35, and 70-200 on a 1.6 body sounds awesome to me.

I like Choice 2. My motto is "The best zoom lens is a prime and a good pair of legs".


It does not cover a wide angle but I personally do not care for wide angle. I wish that canon would update the 35 to USM.


Mark

Hey Mark,


Thanks a lot for your response





Cheers[:)]

I don't haveexperiencewith any of thelensesyou mentioned, but if I can suggest.. Why not go for a 70-200mm f/2.8 (no IS) [$1250], and the 35mm f/2 [$300]. I realize that puts you over budget, but only by 50 bucks. And from what I've seen, the 70-200 f/2.8 does.. does.. does.. create bokeh :)


Just my take on the situation. Isupposeit depends on your shooting style. I know that the 70-200 f/2.8 is on my list though.


-Rodger

I wouldn't argue that a f/2.8 doesn't have more bokeh potential than f/4, though if you stumble just the right way, and can pick and choose your backgrounds, and keep your subject far closer than the background, it's not impossible to get a lot of background blur stopped down substantially...


http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n..._1800x1200.jpg


This was at f/5.6 on a crop body XT, making it effectively f/9 compared to a full frame body.


OTOH, you also need to keep in mind that f/2.8 on a crop body is going to be equivalent to f/4.5 on a full frame body too, so... maybe that's an even stronger nudge. I don't know.

:). Thanks Rodger for your input. 70-200 f 2.8 is high on my wish list , but as it costs USD 1800 in Indian money equiv :(. I am off my budget with this lens. which is why 135 L is attracting me so much. But buying a lens is always a compromise, as I had heard..and now experiencing it for self.

Meanwhile I had no idea that 1.6 bodies also decreases the aperture width of the lenses. I thought that a f 2.0 lens would be constant f 2.0 on both cropped and full frame body! That's bit of info is revelation to me really

Sorry. I know it was addressed in another thread where I think you brought it up, but I was referring to the depth of field/bokeh. The smart guys pointed out that the 1.6 crop not only multiplies the 'effective' focal length from the field of view standpoint, but also affects the 'effective' aperture from a depth of field and total light gathering perspective. The actual light intensity hitting the sensor is the same.


I apologize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abhinow79

Meanwhile I had no idea that 1.6
bodies also decreases the aperture width of the lenses. I thought that
a f 2.0 lens would be constant f 2.0 on both cropped and full frame
body!

---

50mm on XT and 50mm on full frame result in very differnet images. The angle of view is very different. To get the same angle of view requires using 80mm on full frame. So it can be said that 50mm on XT is equivalent to 80mm on full frame.


f/5.6 on XT and f/5.6 on full frame result in very different images. The depth of field, diffraction, and total amount of light is very different. To get the same DOF, diffraction, and light requires using f/9 on full frame. So it can be said that f/5.6 on XT is equivalent to f/9 on full frame.


There is a thread going on about this right now:


Crop factor and f/stop