A usual photographer's dilemma

[Abhinow79]

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 ) . 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. )

[alex]

I like option #1.


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

[clemmb]

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

[Abhinow79]

Hey Mark,


Thanks a lot for your response





Cheers[]

[Rodger]

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

[Colin]

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...





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.

[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! That's bit of info is revelation to me really

[Abhinow79]

. 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.