My gear...what I like and don't like about it

[patham]

Hello all,


I only got into DSLR land about a year ago, so in some ways I'm still a beginner at this and in need of advice (and gentle corrections in case I'm wrong about something).





I currently have:

• Canon EOS 500D - this part is pretty much what's not going to change for years. I see myself sitting quite comfortably in 1.6x land for a long time to come.
• An utterly inadequate tripod, which if I mount a standard zoom can't support the weight of camera+lens and starts tilting. I forget the exact model, but that's not really relevant either...it was a purchase made in haste before a trip and it has proven to be too hasty a decision. It's a mistake I have to assume...

And then the lenses in order of minimum focal distance:

• <span style="color: #339966;"]Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - I consider this the best wide angle zoom I can get for EF-S and it works wonders.
• <span style="color: #ff0000;"]Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - the cheapo plastic kit lens that came with the camera. For the price it is sold for separately, an amazing value for the money.
• <span style="color: #ff0000;"]Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro - this is a pretty good lens for a FF camera...on 1.6x less so due to the focal range becoming less attractive. It was bought soon after the camera and I was too new for all this then. Luckily, it was brought from a friend at a friendly price so even if I have to resell it, I won't lose much.
• <span style="color: #339966;"]Canon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM- for my budget it's a great zoom. Ideally I'd have the 70-200 f/2.8, but until I get the cash for that one, this is the lens I'll be sticking with.

Green is where I'm perfectly happy with what I have. Red...less so. As you can see I have the focal range from 10-300 (16-480 in full format terms) covered. If we disregard the kit lens, it's still almost all covered (apart from 22-24, but that's really not an issue, I *can* move that much). A couple things are glaringly missing though, which brings me to my next point, things which I am planning to buy:

• A flash. The 10-22 very easily sees itself with the onboard flash and the problem is also apparent with the Sigma lens being able to see its hood when at the widest. This will most probably be the 580 EX II, which as far as I can see is the best that is available.
• A fast portrait/low-light lens. After quite a bit of hesitation between 50mm and 85mm and then between f/1.4 and f/1.8 my mind is mostly set on the Canon 50mm f/1.4.
• A better tripod. Not the most urgent, but the current tripod definitely needs an upgrade.
• A standard zoom...and this is where I need some help.

And possibly:

• A macro lens.

So about that standard zoom. I find the 24-70 to be a bit on the long end for me. Going a bit wider would give the following possibilities (in order of current preference, irregardless of price):

• Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
• Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (boy am I glad I could copy/paste that name...)
• Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
• Tamron SP AF 17-50mm / 2,8 XR Di II VC
• Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM
• Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

A couple questions:

1. One thing I'm not sure of is the possible gap between this standard zoom and the telezoom that I have (starting at 70mm). I'd be selling the Sigma lens if I got one of these lenses so with a 17-50 for example I'd be leaving 50-70mm uncovered. How big an issue would this be? Getting the 60mm macro could help with this
2. I am currently gravitating the most towards one of the f/2.8 lenses from the above group. I've read the review for both the Canon and the Tamron both here and over at photozone and I'm still undecided. They do say that the Canon is better, but is it really better enough to justify a price of 800 EUR as compared to 400 for the newer of the two Tamrons (VC) (or 300 for the LD IF)?
3. I've seen that the Tamron VC variant doesn't live up optically to its predecessor. Has anyone had any experience on how the two of them compare?

And lastly I really do need some tripod suggestions from those who know the subject much better than I do. What would be a right tripod for a maximum weight of say an EOS 500D + 70-300 + flash?





Thanks for reading and thanks in advance for any replies!





Patrick

[HDNitehawk]

You have alot of questions:


My thoughts on just a few questions.


No you wouldn't miss not having anything from 50mm to 70mm. Just take a few steps back or a few steps foward. I doubt you would notice, if anything your thought would be I would rather have the shorter lens on now or the longer one.


Macro Lens someday? Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens is one of my favorites


Tripod: How much do you want to spend? And is it the head that tilts or the legs? Maybe you just need a new head and the legs will work?

[patham]

HDNitehawk: The 100mm macro lens does indeed look much better than the 60mm one, but again a difference that matters for me is the price. As the 100mm costs over twice as much, if I were to get a macro lens I

[HDNitehawk]

Patrick


What I was getting to on the Tripod is that if the head is all that is bad, you might just buy a new head and save some $$. If it is one of those that the head is permantaly mounted then you would be out of luck. Generaly though, when looking at tripods I oversized my tripods and heads on purpose. If my lens and camera weighed 5 pounds I wanted one that would hold at least 2x the weight if not alot more.


With the 60mm macro the tripod is going to be even more of a neccessatity than wth the 100mm IS macro. Since the 60 does not have stabilization.

[dsiegel5151]

You can get the Manfrotto 190XBD or 190XPROB legs (rated for 11lbs each; if you really like macro work the PROB is a much better choice) at B&amp;H for $86.85 or $123.59 respectively, and a Vanguard SBH-30 ball head for $40.97 (rated for 11lbs). Are these great setups? No. However, they are more than adequate for what you have, and what you are planning to get. If you do ever end up getting a 70-200mm f/2.8, I would consider a different head. Anyways, those are as cheap of options that I would even consider when buying a tripod. I

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Patrick

One thing I'm not sure of is the possible gap between this standard zoom and the telezoom that I have (starting at 70mm). I'd be selling the Sigma lens if I got one of these lenses so with a 17-50 for example I'd be leaving 50-70mm uncovered. How big an issue would this be? Getting the 60mm macro could help with this

The missing region is pretty much a non-issue, don't worry about it.

I am currently gravitating the most towards one of the f/2.8 lenses from the above group. I've read the review for both the Canon and the Tamron both here and over at photozone and I'm still undecided. They do say that the Canon is better, but is it really better enough to justify a price of 800 EUR as compared to 400 for the newer of the two Tamrons (VC) (or 300 for the LD IF)?...I've seen that the Tamron VC variant doesn't live up optically to its predecessor. Has anyone had any experience on how the two of them compare?

I can highly recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS that's at the top of your list. The optical quality of the Canon lens is excellent. Reportedly, the Tamron 17-50 non-VC lens is close to the Canon for IQ, but the VC version is not as good. Personally, I find that IS really helps at almost any focal length. The EF-S 15-85mm is another very good lens, but the tradeoff is increased focal range for aperture, and I prefer a wider aperture, personally (f/2.8 means a brighter viewfinder, more precise autofocus, and better low-light capability).

And lastly I really do need some tripod suggestions from those who know the subject much better than I do. What would be a right tripod for a maximum weight of say an EOS 500D + 70-300 + flash?

Gitzo is the 'top-of-the-line' and priced accordingly. I believe that Manfrotto offers a great compromise between cost and quality. I have have a carbon-fiber tripod with ballhead and a CF monopod with tilt head from them, and have been quite happy - my 190CXPRO4 holds a gripped 7D with a 100-400mm lens just fine.


Hope that helps...


--John

[patham]

dsiegel: That tripod looks great! The only problem would be the shipping costs B&amp;H gives for shipping to Europe...I guess I

[patham]

I can highly recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS that's at the top of your list. The optical quality of the Canon lens is excellent. Reportedly, the Tamron 17-50 non-VC lens is close to the Canon for IQ, but the VC version is not as good. Personally, I find that IS really helps at almost any focal length. The EF-S 15-85mm is another very good lens, but the tradeoff is increased focal range for aperture, and I prefer a wider aperture, personally (f/2.8 means a brighter viewfinder, more precise autofocus, and better low-light capability).

John, thank you very much for your tips. I'll have to check that tripod suggestion out. As for the standard zoom...well it basically looks like it boils down to between the 17-55 or the non-VC Tamron.





I just checked the comparison tool here:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&amp;Camera=474&amp;Sample=0&am p;FLI=0&amp;API=0&amp;LensComp=400&amp;CameraComp= 474&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp=0&amp;APIComp=0





I'm not sure I'm using the tool correctly, but doesn't the Tamron actually seem sharper?





<span style="color: #ff0000;"]Edit: Heh, just noticed this in the ISO 12233 tool description:

Are The Crop Samples Accurate Image Quality Indicators?

For the most part, I find the results to be very indicative of the image quality of the lens being tested and the comparisons work very well - the results are even better than I had hoped for. However, I'm not totally satisfied with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens results - the 17-55 under-performed in the comparison tool images in my opinion. And the cheap Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens performed better at the wider focal lengths at the relatively short distance than I would expect to see from this lens - it over-performed in the comparison tool.

That might explain some of it.

[dsiegel5151]

I use the same tripod that John has (the 190CXPRO4). It is very nice. I got mine used for $200 off of craigslist.


I had a friend that told me it was Gitzo or nothing one time, so I dropped $500 on a Gitzo. Guess what? It sat in the corner of my closet for 348 days the first (and last) year that I owned it. In other words, it

[HDNitehawk]

<span style="font-size: small;"]

<span style="font-size: small;"]I use the same tripod that John has (the 190CXPRO4). It is very nice. I got mine used for $200 off of craigslist.


<span style="font-size: small;"]I had a friend that told me it was Gitzo or nothing one time, so I dropped $500 on a Gitzo. Guess what? It sat in the corner of my closet for 348 days the first (and last) year that I owned it. In other words, it's good to get suggestions and first hand equipment reviews, but buy what you need and what you're going to use (e.g., really look at your equipment and upgrade the stuff you use all the time; don't' mess with the stuff you barely use). This stuff is too expensive to sit in a corner of a closet.
<div style="clear: both;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]</div>
<span style="font-size: small;"]

<span style="font-size: small;"]Thats good advice. I have a Gitzo 2541EX its a great tripod. Going with the high end tripod sometimes gives you a specialty that other tripod's do not do, which is the case with the one I have, the arm pivots and the legs can pose at any angle independitly. The highend might giveyou easier to use locks on the legs, lighter tripod, maybe just a little more stability and less vibration,but in the end it is all overkill in most situations.Unless you need a specialty tripod the cheaper versions will work. I have a no name tripod in my truck I just carry around in case I need it. I paid well under $200 for it compared to the $800 Gitzo. Also Manfrotto and Gitzo are owned by the same company now.