| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2005 02:23:02 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by bear_music:
For those espousing the Digital Rebel, I have considered it but remember I'm a retired pro used to high-end feel, and this is a long-term investment as well. |
By that rational, the following lenses have no business being on your list:
17-85mm - too cheap in construction, focus hunting in low light, lack of sharpness wide open
50 1.8mm - Buzzy AF, poor build quality
Ask yourself why you want the 20D, then decide if the XT doesn't do it just as well. I think you'd be wiser to put the money into the best glass you can manage. Besides, if you truly wanted a long-term investment, you'd save an additional $1000 and get a 1D II and use the body cap as a pinhole lens until you could afford something better. |
I'm not aware of those drawbacks to the 17-85 mm, this is why I posted here. The 50mm is a bridging lens to give me one high-speed, low-light lens. It's cheap enough not to be a real factor, I can upgrade when I have more money if I ever do. But getting to the 1DII is not gonna be possible for a long long time, this is pushing it as it is.
In my financial situation, the chances of saving significant chunks of money for high-end glass in the future is marginal, I live on a fixed income. I need to do the best I can now on the assumption this is the whole package for the next few years.
Besides, that's 4,000 bux for body ALONE, compared with 1,400 or so. No way.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 02:25:56.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:39:30 AM · #27 |
I hear you Robert. I was being somewhat facetious.
About the 17-85mm, my comments stem from personal in-store demos, feedback from fellow local camera club members (one of whom returned the 17-85 for a similar Sigma), and months of reading Internet reviews/forum posts. Certainly, you might find the lens fits your exact needs, but for the price, I would lean more heavily on faster prime lenses with superior build and image quality.
As for the Rebel versus 20D thing, I think it just stems from my personal realization that my camera body (300D) far exceeds the ability of my lenses (18-55 and 50mm 1.8) to resolve color and detail. I therefore am shopping for lenses first, new camera body second. Surely though, if I were starting fresh as you are, the 20D and D70 would be high on my list. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:41:29 AM · #28 |
The 20D is going to be better than the XT, but by how much? The $600 or so in $ is going to give you one HELL of a good extra lens...
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:02:50 AM · #29 |
| Something to put all your equipment in is another thing to think about. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:11:24 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by wgoodey:
Something to put all your equipment in is another thing to think about. |
Not to mention filters, cleaning equipment, polarizers, extra batteries, CF cards, external flashes, tripod, tripod head(s), reflectors, diffusers, remote shutter release, software, and on and on.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 03:11:35. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 04:11:51 AM · #31 |
Might I dare to suggest the dpreview.com forums for lens reviews by users? They get a bit messy to wade through, but people tend to post tons of example shots and whatnot (generally unprocessed, 100% crops). Of course, quality will vary from person to person (based upon skill and conditions), but it can sometimes be helpful.
Out of curiousity, what has made you firmly decide on the 100mm Canon as opposed to the Sigma or Tamron that might be a bit cheaper? Although I hear the Canon does have the best optics, the Sigma and Tamron both seem to perform well.. and it might save you money on your budget/income.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 04:12:34.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 04:46:17 AM · #32 |
With $3000 I had a quick look on B&H to see what could be got, I think I'd go for the following (all approx. prices):
D70 inc kit 18-70 ($1000)
Sigma 105 Macro ($400)
Tokina 80-400 ($450)
Tamron 28-75 ($350)
Nikon 50mm ($100)
Total: $2300, leaving $700 for other stuff, could even swap the 80-400 for a Sigma 50-500 or a 2.8 telephoto and still keep in your budget.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 04:49:20 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Folks, I MAY have acquired $3,000 (give or take) to spend on new camera and lenses. I require true macro capability, highest quality glass possible within budget, true wide angle but necessarily extreme, a decent throw on telephoto, and of course a good dSLR. Has to be new.
Current thinking runs 20D and the following (Canon) lenses; with rebates this brings me in just under 3K:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ 20D body
ΓΆ€ΒΆ 17-85 4.0
ΓΆ€ΒΆ 70-200 4.0L
ΓΆ€ΒΆ 100 2.8 Macro
ΓΆ€ΒΆ 50 1.8
I'm open to non-canon lenses of veryhigh quality if they help me a lot on price. The 12-24 sigma is extremely tempting but it's 700+ dollars and leaves a big hole in the midrange compared with the 17-85.
I'm unlikely to go Nikon just because of the 2 Mp difference, but I might be able to be convinced.
Immediate feedback required, thanx...
Robt. |
I thoroughly recommend the 20D. I love the feel of it and the comparative speed advantage over my 300D. Cannnot comment in any way upon the suitability of Nikon equipment, other than to say that there are plenty of examples of good shots around.
I have to say that I think the lens range you are looking at seems absolutely fine to me. The 70-200 is a great lens, even though I found it not to be long enough for my particular desires. I guess that you may be interested in architecture shots, so the 17-85IS may be better than the 28-135IS, although it probably will continue to be incompatible with higher-end Canon cameras.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:00:56 AM · #34 |
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, if you're a natural light photographer, you may want to think about a Minolta 7D, as it has IS built into the body. You can then use a 12-24mm lens AND have it with IS. Same with a 50mm F1.8.
Might be worth a thought? |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:09:06 AM · #35 |
Anyway, if I had that money, I would go with
- Rebel XT $766
- Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro $399
- Canon 70-200 f/4L $555
- Tripod ring for said 70-200 $120 (why didn't anyone mention this?)
- Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di $360
- Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD $479
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 II $70
That setup gives you great quality and decent speed throughout. Do a search on any of the lenses that I mentioned, and I think you will find that most people have been very pleased with all of them. The 17-35 is perhaps the 'weakest' of the bunch, and is still definitely a quality lens.
All prices are from B&H, except the XT which is about $50 cheaper at Beach Camera. Of course, you must decide whether you think that the 20D is worth the extra money or not. The above plan leaves about $250 leftover for other expenses - tripod, memory cards, portable storage, flash, etc- whatever you think you need. Some UV filters are a must-polarizers might be of interest to you as well. Lens hoods.. etc.. don't forget to account for all of that in your total cost.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 05:16:04.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 08:24:39 AM · #36 |
Seriously...take this advice. Go to the camera store, and hold the 20d. Now hold the d70. I'd say give that about 50% of your overall score just which one feels right. I strongly considered the XT, then tried the 20d, but the XT felt like a piece of plastic and was WAY too small...and the 20d was nice, but something about the ergonomics on the d70 that really did it for me.
Either camera is going to produce great results, and either camera, you can get the lenses you're after. It's going to come down to personal preference. Pick them up and feel them, don't take our word for it.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 09:02:29 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Looks like the camera equipment will have to wait. Some guy handed me this photo and told me to instruct you to send me the money to turn over to him in exchange for Karma's release.
Just send me the money and I'm sure he will release Karma. :P |
I think we are going to need proof of life here. Perhaps you should post a picture of Karma holding a recent publication....say, perhaps the new issue of the DPC Enquirer.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 09:19:01 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
350XT - $780 (Buydig)
100mm Macro - $450 (BH)
50mm 1.8 - $80 (Buydig)
Tokina 12-24 $490 (BH)
Tamron 28-75 $350 (Buydig)
Total - 2150 leaves room for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM around $800. :)
M |
Bear,
I think this sounds like the best one (not sure of the Tokina) regarding the lenses. I'm saving for L glass but I have put the Tamron 28-75 on my list because if you look at the pictures they are super sharp. Instead of the XT I would go for the 20D though. I bought my rebel and the D70 came out like 2 weeks later and I was just sick...thinking oh man...have I screwed up? Yes, I went to the store, held one and loved the D70....but after being on DPC and learning the difference in the glass I'm very greatful I got a canon...but I wish I had went ahead and got the 20D. I think a rebel would hold you back....but I'm thinking, like you said, for the long run.
I'm so excited that you will be getting this money to get a new camera!!! Your photos are awesome now....I can only imagine what you'll be bringing to the table with a new toy!!!! :)
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 11:28:14 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Seriously...take this advice. Go to the camera store, and hold the 20d. Now hold the d70. I'd say give that about 50% of your overall score just which one feels right. I strongly considered the XT, then tried the 20d, but the XT felt like a piece of plastic and was WAY too small...and the 20d was nice, but something about the ergonomics on the d70 that really did it for me.
Either camera is going to produce great results, and either camera, you can get the lenses you're after. It's going to come down to personal preference. Pick them up and feel them, don't take our word for it. |
The "feel test" is the main component that urges the 20D over the 350xt for me. I also slightly prefer the 20D to the D70 in this "test".
Tripod and memory cards and camera case I already have.Filters I'll acquire incrementally. Didn't know there was a tripod ring for the 70-200.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 11:47:23 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Robert,
I've got the 100 Macro, and it's a great lens. |
Ditto, Pete and I have and love this lens too. Glad to hear it's a definite.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 11:59:28 AM · #41 |
I am probably one of only a few people who owns and has used both the D70 and the 20D.
I personally find the D70 better designed on a number of fronts BUT the 20D is also a comfortable camera to hold and use and one will quickly become accustomed to working with either.
(Aside: An example for me of D70 superior design is location/ accessibility of on/ off switch - I can grab the D70, switching it on as I swing it to my eye and be pressing down on the shutter to grab a brief unexpected opportunity much more quickly than I can with the 20D which has a stupid on/ off switch position to my mind).
Both bodies are good. Both systems have a range of good lenses and lots of pros and hobbiests who swear by each. It's unlikely you'll go wrong with either so don't feel pressurised into one or the other.
For the record, my main reason to buy a 20D when we wanted a second DSLR was because we'd had focus problems using longer lenses with the D70 which meant losing shot after shot in wildlife situations. Initially I assumed it was the cheap, crappy lens but on speaking to a pro who uses various Nikon SLRs and various lenses, cheap and high-end, this is an issue that's cropped up for him on a number of occasions. I hadn't heard of this from Canon pros so decided to give Canon a try. Given that there are also more Canon users on holidays I tend to do it can also allow me the fun opportunity to swap lenses with fellow holidaymakers.
The 20D has been a pleasure to use so far, though even after this length of time, I still feel the interface design is not as instinctive or helpful as the D70.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 12:37:58 PM · #42 |
Robert, here's what I'd buy for my canon, if I was looking for the same thing as you are:
Zoom Super Wide Angle 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 EX DG Aspherical HSM Autofocus Lens - U$ 499,00
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens - U$439,00
Telephoto 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus Lens - U$ 399,00
Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens - U$ 839,00
And that's only Sigma stuff, cz I'm damn lazy too look for other brands, such as tokina, tamron, and so.
All prices from B&H.
Throw in a 20D body (U$ 1,229.95 after 100,00 mail-in rebate) and that'll sum up to:
U$ 3405,95
If you happen to choose the 350D XT (U$ 819,95) it'll be:
U$ 2995,95
My best guess is that you'll do just fine with the 350D. It might feel a little small at a first try, but you get used to it. I'm 6'3", and I've got big hands. If you really need a better grip, throw in a BG-E3 Vertical Grip, and another set of batteries for longer stamina!
You'll get top stuff, with almost he same quality (if not the same, or even superior) as the canon ones!
Give it a try, you won't regret! |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:17:37 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... Didn't know there was a tripod ring for the 70-200.
R. |
If you go with the 70-200mm 4L and feel you need the tripod collar get the black one for the 200mm f/2.8L, it fits the 70-200mm 4L (and others) and is 30-40 bucks less... I guess B&H has realized this as the black one was going for 60 bucks not long ago. The white on is going for $120.00
BH Tripod Collar
Discussion on Photo.net
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:32:21 PM · #44 |
Looks like we may have a 3.5K budget, will know for sure in a couple days, help me spend it wisely. Assume 20D and 105 macro and go from there. May be able to get that 70-200L now...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:39:22 PM · #45 |
Don't forget to budget for filters--with lens fronts 67mm and wider, they can cost as much as a third party lens! A good B+W circular polarizer for the 67mm 70-200 is $100 or more. Or since you do landscapes, you might want to go with the Cokin system.
Edit: Oops. Bad memory.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 14:40:54. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:47:44 PM · #46 |
For comparisons of lenses this site is very good. Makes it easy to compare overall quality amongst many brands/ranges/ages of lenses.
Canon lenses DO NOT come with hoods - so add $30-$50 per lens. Tamron and sigma do, and the sigma lenses come with cases (with belt loop attachments - handy items to have at times).
I run hoods and no filters. Others have their preferences...
I think it is sterlingTek that does batteries for less than canon and reliable as good. i got some cheap ones off ebay - 1 worked sorta one time the other is as good as the canon.
Check out ebay vendors - you can get new stuff there for 10-20% less than b&h. I got my sigma lenses ($420 vs 519, 180 vs 219) and metz Flash ($300 vs 439 - slightly used w/ lightsphere). A total of $280 in savings - not something to overlook.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:52:19 PM · #47 |
Robert,
I went with the Nikon, strictly by the way it felt in my hands. Would have liked the extra 2MP, because it does make a difference if you crop your photos. My suggestion would be to get the camera that "feels" right, and spend whatever is left on the best glass you can get. You mentioned a couple of f4.0 lenses. If you are shooting landscapes or still subjects, you should be fine. I shoot a lot of pictures at Dog Shows and for that reason, wanted a faster lens. I chose a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED lens. I chose the Nikon over other makes based on reviews and an impression (maybe wrongly so), that a Nikon lens would be the most compatible with a Nikon camera. I didn't go for the VR option, an additional $500 on top of the $850 the 80-200 cost. Most of my shooting is during the day, outdoors where there is plenty of light, and I haven't seen the need for the VR. I would like to add some lenses, but learned long ago that having a wide assortment of "inexpensive" lenses was not as good as having 1 or 2 great lenses that I could count on to give me the quality and clarity that I hope for. You already take great pictures and have some idea of what you need for the shots you take. Choose your lenses carefully, and don't be afraid to spend a bit more on fewer lenses in order to get the quality your craft deserves.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 02:57:04 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Looks like we may have a 3.5K budget, will know for sure in a couple days, help me spend it wisely. Assume 20D and 105 macro and go from there. May be able to get that 70-200L now... |
I'd suggest only buying a few lenses to begin with, and then going from there. I know you have 25+ years experience and probably have a very good idea of what you want and need - but hidden expenses always come up (at least for me, they do) and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a decent amount of that budget saved up in case a new 'hot' lens comes out.. or you realize you need/want something else in the way of accessories.
The tripod collar for the 70-200 seems like pretty much a necessity given the weight. That is, unless you never plan to use a tripod with that thing.
So, you decided to get the Sigma 105 as opposed to the Canon 100? Considering the money it'll save you, I think it's a good choice.
Are you entirely opposed to getting anything second hand? (ie: suppose someone with 99.x-100% feedback is selling a lens on eBay?)
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:00:34 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Looks like we may have a 3.5K budget, will know for sure in a couple days, help me spend it wisely. Assume 20D and 105 macro and go from there. May be able to get that 70-200L now... |
I'd suggest only buying a few lenses to begin with, and then going from there. I know you have 25+ years experience and probably have a very good idea of what you want and need - but hidden expenses always come up (at least for me, they do) and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a decent amount of that budget saved up in case a new 'hot' lens comes out.. or you realize you need/want something else in the way of accessories.
The tripod collar for the 70-200 seems like pretty much a necessity given the weight. That is, unless you never plan to use a tripod with that thing.
So, you decided to get the Sigma 105 as opposed to the Canon 100? Considering the money it'll save you, I think it's a good choice.
Are you entirely opposed to getting anything second hand? (ie: suppose someone with 99.x-100% feedback is selling a lens on eBay?) |
I meant the Canon 100 macro, typo. My problem is, someone else will be buying this to my specs. I'll never have the cash in hand to hoard any of it; whatever doesn't get spent, disappears. And this means, basically, buying from a single source, not piece-by-piece on e-bay or elsewhere.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-07-08 15:01:21.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 03:38:03 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I meant the Canon 100 macro, typo. My problem is, someone else will be buying this to my specs. I'll never have the cash in hand to hoard any of it; whatever doesn't get spent, disappears. And this means, basically, buying from a single source, not piece-by-piece on e-bay or elsewhere. |
Ahh, okay. That does make things a bit tougher (but also fun, cuz now you won't regret not 'saving' some of it!). I think if you go with a separate wide-angle lens, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di is a must - not that I've used it (unfortunately), but everyone has been praising it left and right.. I believe it's touted as one of the best buys for the money you can get (coincidentally, also something that the 70-200 f4L is known for - as I'm sure you know).
|
|
