Originally Posted by wickerprints
WOW! You have given me a lot to look into and I very much appreciate all of the suggestions! I think you have pointed me into a much better direction...the 70-200/2.8L and 24-105 or off my list and yes, I do wish now that I would have waited at purchased the 300/2.8L instead but I am still grateful for what I do have.
Thanks Much,
Denise
That's not the point. Wicker is saying that once he got the 100 macro and 300, the 70-200 wasn't used much. He wasn't (I don't think) suggesting the 300 f/2.8 for you. That's a beast of a lens, you'd need an even stronger tripod and gimbal to support that baby. Honestly, I think the 300 f/4 is better for you due to its macro capability and light weight. The 300 f/2.8 is a sports lens, you pay $3000 for that 2.8 aperture which most don't need. I shoot birds with my 300 f/4 and can manage shutter speeds of 1/2000 with ISO 400 in wooded areas on overcast days. If you need to shoot a running back running at the camera at night in crappy lighting, the 300 f/2.8 is for you. Otherwise, keep your 300 f/4.
brendan
Oops, I meant to type that the 70-200 and 24-105 are off my list (I have corrected the error).I do get the point Wicker was making and realize he was not suggesting I get the 300/2.8 now nor would I even think of purchasing now that I already have the 300 f/4.
That's not the point. Wicker is saying that once he got the 100 macro and 300, the 70-200 wasn't used much. He wasn't (I don't think) suggesting the 300 f/2.8 for you. That's a beast of a lens, you'd need an even stronger tripod and gimbal to support that baby. Honestly, I think the 300 f/4 is better for you due to its macro capability and light weight. The 300 f/2.8 is a sports lens, you pay $3000 for that 2.8 aperture which most don't need. I shoot birds with my 300 f/4 and can manage shutter speeds of 1/2000 with ISO 400 in wooded areas on overcast days. If you need to shoot a running back running at the camera at night in crappy lighting, the 300 f/2.8 is for you. Otherwise, keep your 300 f/4.
brendan
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Denise
Is the 5D2 in the ballpark for you?
#1 - I would never purchase anything I could not afford.
Only you can answer that. What is missing in your kit? I see only one hole: landscapes. And so, I'll recommend the 10-22 as the next lens. Now, if you buy that, a 7D, and a macro flash you'll have spend $2400 more on gear. If that's no problem for you, then fine, order it today. But I think you need to know your priorities. When you shoot with your current gear, what do you wish you had? Narrow it down from there. And remember that no gear will take good pictures. You take good pictures. Don't think "OK, what next to buy?". Think, I have a problem here. Is it me, my subjects, or the camera? Go from there. Know your priorities and you will end up spending a whole lot less money. Don't buy a tripod because others say you need one. Buy a tripod because you feel a genuine need for sharper photographs.
brendan
#2 - If "no gear willtake good pictures", then why doesn't everyone just own the lowest end camera, a inexpensive lens and just pp the heck out of everything? And why doesn't Bryan just give up giving awesome reviews for us to make the best decisions possible? I'm sorry but I truly believe good gear helps make my crappy photos look less crappy!
#3 - Why am I the only one that gets so kicked in the shins by you anytime I want to purchase ANYTHING? [:'(]
Maybe I will take crappy photos no matter what I purchase but I will still have fun doing it! [:P]
Cheers,
Denise
Agree with Brendan again, don't start going down the 300 f/2.8 road. The f/4 w/extender is solid enough for wildlife.
Wow so you pulled the trigger on selling the T1i. I couldn't wait so I'd be on a 7D by now which isn't bad at all. If that is case or even if you have more patience than me and wait for the T2i, I think 10-22mm AND 17-55 f/2.8 will fill out your kit and cover landscape and general purpose (to replace the kit lenses you had before - I assume you sold those w/the T1i).
I still think you consider the 5DmkII though. Sees like you really have the photography bug and FF with something like the 17-40 f/4 (or if budget allows 16-35 f/2.8) is awesome. This would also bring the 25-105 f/4 back into the picture (as the 17-55 ef-s won't work w/5D). You could save up for that or you get the 50 1.4 and foot zoom it. It would be a relatively inexpensive and a great indoor/low light lens for you.
I have the 17-40 f/4, 70-200 f/4 and 50 1.8 right now on my T1i. Went this route because I am still heavily leaning on going full frame. Some of the other guys here have only further validated my thoughts on 5DmkII and I really think your talent (i've seem some of the pics you've posted already and they are great) would really be expanded with a FF camera. The 5DmkII current comes in a great kit w/24-105 f/4 and is a great deal. I would then get the 17-55 ef-s lens and keep my T1i as a 2nd body (might have to fight the wife for the 5D and I usually will lose that fight).
I really think you should consider the 5DmkII - but do what feels right for you, as much as we try the rest of us sometimes can't help put our own biases in.
Clark
Thank you Clark for the comment about my photos! [] [
I sold the T1i body only on ebay this morning and posted the 55-250mm this afternoon on there. If I go with the 5DmkII, there would be absolutely no lenses in my near future so I'll really have to do some heavy thinking of which direction I want to take. I don't see me being able to wait for the T2i. The 7D is looking like the leader in this scenerio right now. But I've been known to change my mind quickly! [:P]
Denise
I will quote Nate from another post: "Beginners tend to think "my camera sucks, it gives crappy results, I wish I have a better camera so I can make better images"." Hey, maybe we're wrong, but I think it's a valuable viewpoint. I'm a beginner myself and that thinking has helped me. It's not that gear doesn't help, well, it's that maybe it isn't Jesus to your photography (I think I didn't say it very well in my previous post). That's the big debate: (http://community.the-digital-picture...7298.aspx#7298). Maybe that will explain. Remember, some of those posts in that thread are more relevant than others, many don't apply to you.
I certainly don't mean to kick you in the shins and I apologize if I come off that way. I am a bit overcautious, so take what I say with a (few) grain(s) of salt [pi]
Good Luck!
brendan
Hi Denise! I'm certainly not one to 'kick in the shins' for purchasing additional gear...admittedly, I suffer from gear acquisition syndrome, lens lust, whatever you want to call it (5 lenses in 5 months, and probably my 6th next week). However, I think you certainly raised a few eyebrows by purchasing your first dSLR body in December and selling it to purchase a new body less than two months later. I think there's a difference between adding to your kit and replacing parts of it soon after purchase (kit lenses are an exception, but for that reason I recommend buying body-only). You have us wondering if, after the 7D now you'll be onto a 5D MkII in April and a 1Ds MkIII by summer (or the 1Ds MkIV if that comes out first). [:P]
The other eye-opening part, for me at least, is your mention of considering a T2i - that's like buying a 2009 Accord, then selling it after a couple of months to get a 2010 Accord. I'd wonder if the fact that they moved the cruise control buttons 1" closer to the edge of the steering wheel spoke and added a second cabin air filter could really make such a difference...
I'd vote for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. You've got longer primes with fast apertures and great IQ, both of which your kit lens lacks. You've mentioned shooting dogs, grandkids, etc. - around-the-house shots. The 17-55mm focal length is ideal for that sort of thing - that's the lens on my camera most of the time, and the fast aperture and IQ are excellent. 17mm is wide enough for most landscape shots. I do also have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, which has its place and is a fun lens. But I really think you'll get more out of the 17-55mm at first.
Not true (the crappy picture part - I know you're having fun!) - the more pictures you take, the better you'll get. That's true of almost everything in life... []
The T1i was purchased in Sept. not December when I didn't know a thing about cameras or photography and it was in my price range at the time. Now thatI have the $$$ available and I have had 4 months of using it and doing a great deal of reading and trying out other cameras, I know it was the wrong camera, right price. In all honesty, there are a few things that were improved with the T2i that were wrong (for me) on the T1iand the price allows me to still purchase another lens. Plus, although I have come quite a ways from not even knowing what ISO and apeture was 4 months ago, I realize I am not ready for all the 7D has to offer but would rather learn from using it than a Rebel but don't want to overwhelm myself at the same time. I am also hesitant on the 7D because there are as many bad reviews as there are good. Sounds like some are having issues with it.
If I purchase the 7D, I will own it for a number of years to come. The ones you mention above are out of my price range and I would much rather buy a good lens instead.
In my opinion, you have to be happy with the body you're holding or it ruins the entire experience! [:P]
Denise
P.S. i do think I will get the 17-55 once I get the camera issue squared away.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote