Buy Lens or Save for new Body?

[Chuck Lee]

Ms. Secretary,


Check out what this lady does with a rebel..... http://saralondesworld.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=9


Doesn't look like she's spent a fortune on glass.


I agree with the other posters that you should "invest" in glass, "buy" bodies. Your 40D is a semi-pro camera and is more than enough.


"2.8 or 4"... IS or Not?" What are you going to do with the 70-200? I always ask myself what it is I will use that lens I'm getting ready to buy for. Do you have a specific idea or you just think you need it? I say this, because in your original post it sounds like your excited but not certain.


I carry three lenses with a used 5D. 17-35 f2.8 L, 28-75 f2.8 L, & 70-200 f2.8 L That is my "kit". I have a EF 50 1.4 and a EF 100 f2.8 Macro. I bought all these lenses over a period of two years while taking over 30,000 photos among three different camera bodies. My original lens was a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Dithat came on a used 20D and within two days I added a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The 20D is gone but I still have and use on occasion both of those lenses on my 40D. I bought the wide angle 17-50 f2.8 simply because we were heading to the state fair and I new in my mind the photos I wanted to take. It worked very well without breaking the bank at the time.


I am extremely happy with the IQ of the photos thatmy "kit" produces.I am left withno excuses. It all boils down to what I am learning and how I grow as a photographer. I still dream of one day owning a EF 200 f1.8 L but in the mean time I'll be very contentto shoot what I've got.


Chuck

[hotsecretary]

Well, I want a nice Portrait lens as I've been doing a lot of those lately... of my niece, g/f and dog.


And I've heard good things about the 70-200 for Portraits, plus I do like doing some Zoo Trips every once in a while.
Just not sure if the 2.8L IS is worth double the price it is for the 4L no IS.


Plus of course the walk around lens, hence the 24-70mm ..to replace the EF-S Lens.


And I also loved doing Wide Angle shots of various landscapes, buildings, etc. But that's a later on purchase on my list, more concerned with Portrait and Walk around Lens.. plus I like to shoot Night Club shots too, hence picking up a Flash in the next month.


So that's my predicament! I'm stuck wondering where to drop my $$ first, hence the recent purchase of the 50mm as it was cheap and does the job for now for Portraits with "ugly bokeh"


This is all something I plan to purchase over the next year, not the next month sort of thing, unless I win the lotto or some rich relative I dont' know dies and leaves me something

[Cory]

If a hobbiest (as you state) and you already have a 40D, I'd spend the money on a lens. Just try to make it a lens that will work on the camera you are considering upgrading too.

[Chuck Lee]

Ms Secretary,


Sounds like you have some focused aspirations. It also sounds like you know what you want. Now "you" need to decide how much to spend and on what. The 50 is a pretty good portrait lens on the 40D at f2.8. The 100mm f2.8 macro is an absolute fabulous portrait lens on crop and FF. It also doubles as a close up "macro"lens. That coupled with a 430EX flash could scratch that itch for a few more weeks. Soon or later your going to want that 70-200. f2.8 IS is the best. I wouldn't knowI'vegot the non-IS version. But I still love it!!. For wide angle/standard walk around the Tamron 17-50or for 2.5X the price a Canon EF 17-55 IS. I hear the night club calling and you might not need to use flash with the Canon 17-55. Remember that both of these lenses are for 1.6X crop cameras like the 40D. When used the equivalent field of view is like a 28-75mm lens on a FF like the 5D.I think you know that. I ramble.


My vote would be for 17-50 f2.8 lens and a good flash. Learn how to bounce the flash and mix it with ambient. That will help your candid portraiture as much if not more than investing in a 70-200.


It goes on and on and on,


Chuck

[Julius]

I would definitely go for the lens. Camera bodies get upgrade every year while a good L lens will always be with you. I would go for the 70-200 mm f4.0 L IS USM which is a very sharp lens which you can use for portraits, landscapes and has enough reach for the majority of pictures that people like to take. You can also buy an extender if you want more reach.

[Paulski]

Hotsecretary.


Buy a lens.. The 40D is excellant, i have recently bought one as an upgrade from a 350D/rebel and i'm really impressed withit. I have just this week boughta 70-200mmF4 IS.WOW!The pictures I'm getting with this lens of my daughter (6months old)are nothing but fantastic and in low light its not a problem handheld with the IS. I also have a 28-135mm IS which (in my opinion) is quite a good walk about lens for my purposes.


Enjoy you renewed interest:-)





Paul

[peety3]

But I've thinking more and more about the future, I think my next logical purchase is a real Flash.

Very good choice. You can't always use flash (sometimes it's too weak to be useful, sometimes it's inappropriate), but it'll make a big impact to your pictures.

Now here's the next question... I've been thinking about getting new Lens, most likely a Wide Angle, Zoom (70-200) most likely and possibly replacing one day the walk around lens with something expensive one day like a 24-70.

I have the 24-105. I've rented the 24-70. I love the 24-70. But to be honest, I'm not in a big rush to get it. Get a good wide-angle lens, a good telephoto lens, and use your 50mm to fill the gap (if you ever need to). Maybe bump up to the 50/1.4.

But I feel with my camera I'd be losing out if I bought any of the above and stuck them on the 40D as it's a 1.6x body versus a FF body.

Why? You can get a 40D and the EF-S 10-22 for less than a 5D Mark II, and you'd then still have to buy a 16-35mm lens for the 5D2 after that!.

So in your opinion(s) would you save for something like a 5D Mark II or start purchasing the Lens one by one?

Buy lenses. Buy more lenses. Maybe rent some lenses along the way, to help shape your purchase decisions.


And think about what lenses you'll have in 3-5 years. Sometimes it's tough to get from here to there on a direct path, but it can be good to think about it. Example: my girlfriend has a 40D with the kit 28-135 lens. I have two (mismatched) bodies, the 16-35, 24-105, 50/1.8, and 70-200/2.8IS. I'm a nice guy and share. On a recent event, we weren't able to share, so we rented, and she ended up with the EF-S 10-22, my 24-105, and the 70-200/4IS (along with a 50D body). She was VERY happy with the results. Another example: I started with the 24-105 (oh, and the Rebel kit lens...). I've since added the 70-200/2.8IS and 16-35. For that same event, I rented the 24-70 to fill in my gap. I shot with two cameras, and in the end the 16-35 and 70-200 combo did a majority of the work. (Related: my new "opinion" on the 24-70 vs. 24-105 debate is the 24-105 is great if it's your only lens, while the 24-70 is phenomenal if you have others to go around it.)

[peety3]

Well, I want a nice Portrait lens as I've been doing a lot of those lately... of my niece, g/f and dog.


And I've heard good things about the 70-200 for Portraits, plus I do like doing some Zoo Trips every once in a while.
Just not sure if the 2.8L IS is worth double the price it is for the 4L no IS.


Plus of course the walk around lens, hence the 24-70mm ..to replace the EF-S Lens.


And I also loved doing Wide Angle shots of various landscapes, buildings, etc. But that's a later on purchase on my list, more concerned with Portrait and Walk around Lens.. plus I like to shoot Night Club shots too, hence picking up a Flash in the next month.


So that's my predicament! I'm stuck wondering where to drop my $ first, hence the recent purchase of the 50mm as it was cheap and does the job for now for Portraits with "ugly bokeh"
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Your starter lens will do well on the wide end. If you like portraits, there are lots to choose from. I'd suggest going to a store where you can try the 70-200 in both apertures - the f/2.8 is heavy, and for that reason my girlfriend prefers the f/4 version. Then, take an honest look at your shutter speeds in pictures you've taken. "Do the math" to see what they'd be if you were shooting at f/4, or perhaps at f/2.8 (if you spend the big bucks). If they're in the 1/112th (assuming you were shooting closer to 70mm focal length) to 1/320th (closer to 200mm focal length, or that's what you envision for the shot) range or faster, you're likely OK without IS. If they're more along the lines of 1/15th to 1/40th, you'll need IS to avoid shaky pictures (if your subjects can even keep still).

[hotsecretary]

I'm only asking about the difference in the 70-200 as the price difference here in Canada is ~700$ to go from the 4 to the 2.8 IS


And I'm trying to stay away from EF-S lens as I'd rather not invest ~$1,000 in a lens I wouldn't really use if I upgrade (which I plan to do) to a FF body in the future. So I'm merely looking for personal opinions on some of the Wide Angel EF lens and the Zoom Lens such as 70-200 as I've heard many good things about this Lens for it's versatility. And more curious if it's just better to wait a month or so extra to get the 2.8 IS instead of buying possibly the 4L non IS and then upgrading later and being stuck with the job of selling the 4L.



I'm all for spending the bit more $$ up front if it's going to be worth while in the end. I'd rather pay more, then to pay more in the end anyways


As for the Flash, that's a for sure upgrade (next week most likely).. after taking a few shots in low light in a Night Club.. I quickly realized you need a real flash.


I'm more shopping for the future and want to spend my $$ wisely, instead of re-spending.

[peety3]

And I'm trying to stay away from EF-S lens as I'd rather not invest ~$1,000 in a lens I wouldn't really use if I upgrade (which I plan to do) to a FF body in the future.


I'm more shopping for the future and want to spend my $ wisely, instead of re-spending.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I don't know Canadian prices, only US. But here's the deal (in USD): you can spend $700 on the EF-S 10-22, which is a GREAT little lens, and have coverage of the 16-35mm effective focal length range. Or, you can spend $2700 on the 5D Mark II and $1400 on the 16-35/2.8II lens to get the same range. That's a $3400 difference on a $700 purchase.


And when the time comes to upgrade your camera, if you sell the camera, you can sell the lens with it and make an attractive package with it. Or, I'd say the smarter choice is to keep the 40D, just in case the new camera has to go back to Canon for repairs or service bulletins; if you're keeping the camera, I'd sure want to keep the 10-22 as a safety (unless I was rich enough to get the 14/2.8 prime, but even then there's a loss of range).