More Lens Questions

[j._knight]

Sorry to be such a pain but hte answers I got on my last question (see only a

few topics down) only helped in having more questions arise. Despite what I

said I actually went with the 17-40mm f4 (i found one cheap enough to not

warrant passing on it, plus I feel like If I end up needing the 2.8 I can sell

this one for a $200 or $300 profit to help with getting the 16-35) So now my

lens' are as follows:

<P>

17-40mm f4

<P>

28-105mm f3.5-4.5

<P>

50mm f1.8

<P>

70-200mm f2.8

<P>

My question is, what comes next? Should I ditch the 28-105 since I basically

have the entire focal length covered or should I keep it and just add one more

prime wide angle (14mm or 15mm fisheye)? Should I just stop here with these 4

lenses above?

<P>

I have a 1.4x if I need to get something more than 200mm so I dont think another

telephoto is needed plus I have access to about anywhere I want in the

arenas/fields thanks to being a HS shooter so 300mm + isnt really a concern to me.

:-)

<P>

What should I do? I need HELP with spending my money! (not that I havent spent

enough this year on photo equipment). Yikes!

<P>

Thank you for all your responses I really do greatly appreciate and I hope I

will be able to reciprocate your kindness in a helpful post of my own when you

ask a question. : )

[trothwell]

Try using the 17-40mm at 17mm before going for 14mm or 15mm lens. Some people find ultrawide lenses difficult to use effectively, and 17mm is pretty wide.

 

You've got a lot of range covered, especially if you're content with 200mm on the long end. So basically you're looking to get higher quality lenses within the range you already have, yes?

 

If so, then here are some potential purchases for you:

 

- 35/1.4 L

- 50/1.2 L (coming out later this year)

- 85/1.2 L

- 135/2 L (I love this lens -- beautiful results, but might be too redundant with your 70-200 zoom)

- 24-70/2.8 L or 24-105/4 L to replace your midrange zoom

- 100/2.8 macro or 180/3.5 L macro (for flowers and insects)

- 65/2.8 macro (for rice grains)

 

In other words, um, go browse Canon's website for any cool lens that you don't already have. :-) In general, the "L" primes will likely be most impressive to you.

[terence_tong1]

Well Travis listed pretty much everything!

 

I'll add 135 f/2.8 SF; 200 f/2 L, 35 f/2, 85 f/1.8; Tokina 12-24 or EF 10-20; Peleng 8mm fish.

[dogbert]

I was reading baout Sam Abel last night, who is a respected photographer who has worked for National Geogrpahic for over 20 years. He has been doing this with two old Nikon primes, a 28mm and a 90mm.

 

Spend more time learning technique and practicing, and less time worry about what to buy next. You already have more than you need.

[geoffs1]

> I need HELP with spending my money!

 

Well, I've never found that I have enough telephotos, so if you have the $$$ and want an absolutely awesome lens to replace the 70-200mm + 1.4TC, I'd always suggest the 300m f2.8 IS; perhaps simply one of the best lenses Canon has ever made... I'm a big guy, but by no means a bruiser, and I can semi-comfortably hand-hold it over an extended period of time.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

[robin_sibson1]

Trevis, the OP is using a 20D (see earlier post) so 17mm is only medium-wide.

 

The "weak link" in the present setup is definitely the 28~105, even tho' you have the decent version (rather than the 4~5.6 budget lens). I used the 28~105 for a number of years on FF, and eventually became dissatisfied with it. But if you omit that from the lineup, what can't you do? The obvious answers are really wide angle, unbroken zoom across the 40~50~70 gap, long telephoto, and macro. Do you need to plug any of these gaps? If so, ask for specific advice. If you just feel like spending money, buy an 85/1.2.

[carl_weller]

Why not stop for a while?

 

The 17-40 and 70-200 are great and the 50 is a $70 treasure.

 

The 28-105 is OK. A better lense would be the 24-105. I got one and have a stack of

primes I'm just not using anymore (the exceptions being an 85 for low low light and a 100

macro). IS is a god send and not having to change lenses and risk dust and crap getting on

the sensor is great.

 

The thing is though, I have seen anything in your post that says "I need a lense to do X

with". You just want to spend money?

 

Why not go on holiday with what you've got (and your significant other of course)? A few

days somewhere nice with interesting things to photograph seems a more useful thing to

do than buy something you don't seem to need. Who knows? While you're there you might

figure out that you need a new lense for some specific purpose...

 

thats my two cents.

[yakim_peled1]

>> My question is, what comes next?

 

 

My question is, what do you need?

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[pjmeade]

Hello JK, if your priority here is getting good quality lenses rather than spending your cash on anything else, then you could look to replacing the 28-105. The obvious contenders are the 24-70/f2.8 or the 24-105/f4 IS.

 

However, there is something to be said for using the cash to go on holiday/away and take photos and hone your skills.

 

My 2p.

 

Regards. Pete

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

My question is, what comes next? Should I ditch the 28-105 since I basically have the entire focal length covered or should I keep it and just add one more prime wide angle (14mm or 15mm fisheye)? Should I just stop here with these 4 lenses above?

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

I think that for most people more than two lenses is overkill. Sell what you don't use, and only buy something if you <u>repeatedly</u> find yourself <u>needing</u> a specific focal length or aperture you don't have. Otherwise you'll just find yourself succumbing to the disease of Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

[charles_van_sistine]

It comes down to what you want to do with your Camera and Lens collection. It would seem that you want a "Trophy" collection instead of the best set of lenses to meet specific photography needs. I really don't mean to be harsh, but if that is your goal, then just start replacing your non-L lenses with similar focal length L-lenses.

 

On the other hand, if you are a Portrait shooter, you're already covered with your lenses. If you are a Landscape photographer, you are similarly covered. If you are a Nature photographer, sell everything and buy a Super Telephoto L lense. I'd suggest a 600mm L and a good tripod setup.

 

As others have suggested, shoot the type of images you like t shoot with your current setup and see where you fall short. Then address that with an appropriate lense selection. Maybe Macro, Maybe Super Wide Angle, Maybe Super Telephoto. No one can figure that out but you and your shooting needs.

 

Happy shooting!

[robert_potts1]

If you don't know what you need, you probably don't need anything. On the other hand, if I was in your place, I would be looking for a macro.

[pto189]

<i>He has been doing this with two old Nikon primes, a 28mm and a 90mm.</i><p>

Unfortunately he isn't Sam Abel, so he needs more than two prime lenses. :)<p>

You will definitely keep the 17-40 and 50. Replace the 28-105 with the new 24-105 now. Replace the 70-200 f/1.8 with the coming 70-200 f/4 IS next year. You can at any time buy the 100 macro to use as a macro and protrait lens on a 1.6x DSLR.<p>

I think three f/4 17-40, 24-105 IS and 70-200 IS is a killer set. In addition, 50 f/1.8 II, 100 macro, and 300 f/4 IS with 1/4x TC is a very nice prime set.

[carlos_miami]

I don't know what your needs are, but this is what I would do:

 

Sell 17-40mm and 28-105mm, replace with Sigma 12-24mm (covers full-frame), and 24-105mm f4L IS. I'd possibly add a macro lens like a Tamron 90mm f2.8 DI or Sigma 105 f2.8.

 

You can always get into fast expensive primes like the 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2L, or you can buy adapters and use old, cheap but good Nikon manual focus lenses on your EOS.