I just got some cash and I would like your guy's help to spending it!

[tal_sarih]

<p>Hello guys!<br /> I just got $750 and I wana buy some more photography stuff.<br /> So I have a couple of things I would like to consider, and was hoping you guys could help me choose the right thing for me.<br /> So here's the things I am considering of buying:<br /> Canon 50 f/1.4<br /> Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro<br /> Canon 35 f/1.8<br /> 7D (if I sell my 600D and buy them both with the combined money)<br /> Keep the money and save up to buy a 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6.<br /> Right now I have the 55-250, 50 1.8, and the silly 18-55.<br /> Usually I shoot with the 50mm but sometimes I need to step back too much, and I usually shoot at 1.8-2.5 and it's really soft.<br /> I don't have too much time but I am starting to shoot some sports like surfing. The 55-250 is decent at f/8, and the range is like 88-400 on a full frame, so the zoom is quite ok. I really like macro, like REALLY like macro, and all my lenses has really bad MFD, exept the 55-250, which is too long for casual macro.<br /> I hate the 50 f/1.8's focusing noise and speed, and the lack of sharpness at 1.8, so maybe I should go for the 1.4, which at f/1.8 is sharper than the 1.8 at 1.8.</p>

<p>Now... The 7D... My friend has one and I really like it. I like it's focus and viewfinder, and the shutter, and everything...<br /> But that will mean I will have to stay with my current lenses untill I can upgrade again. I am (only) 14, I'm working a couple of times a week, usually I make about $50 a week.<br /> Can anyone give me an advice please, I am lost?</p>

<p>I usually shoot alot of macro (flowers, not bugs), animals from close, portraits, lighting (I think it's called Active Lighting?), wildlife (much less since I live in a city.. Without too big a Zoo or a Safari).<br /> Thanks for everyone who helps :)</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>You have a ton of needs and not much cash so you need to prioritize and think about what is the most important to you. Here is my couple cents worth of advice.</p>

<p>First, you can safely skip the 7D. It will help a bit with surfing but won't do anything for you regarding macro and general purpose photography. </p>

<p>As for the 50 1.4... the Canon 50/1.4 isn't much of a step-up from the 50/1.8. The Sigma 50/1.4 is better and costs more or less the same (at least in the US), but may not be readily available depending on where you reside. However, in either case, neither lens is that much of a step-up for you as they aren't that much sharper or faster to focus and get you the same field of view which you find problematic from time to time. </p>

<p>I'm not sure if you are referring to the Canon 28/1.8 or the 35/2 as there is no Canon 35/1.8. Both of those lenses are good and will get you wider than the 50/1.8 so at least with one of these you are getting an upgrade in terms of capability. </p>

<p>For macro, since you only work with flowers, the Canon 50/2.5 is a good option. It goes for $270 here which is about $200 less than good used copies of the 100/2.8 USM. I personally prefer longer lenses for my macro work, but I have a larger budget than you. </p>

<p>Also, you might want to seriously think about lighting as proper usage of a flash can really help your portraits and your macro work. I hate to add another thing to your list, but I find that for a lot of things, the lighting setup is a lot more important than the lens. </p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Since you love macro, no reason not to pursue that. You might look at the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro, which gets you macro lens as well as partly replacing the 50/1.8 that you're not entirely pleased with. The Canon 100mm macros are both very good lenses too.</p>

[matthijs]

Maybe the 28/1.8 and a 12mm extension tube?

 

The 28 so you don't have to step back too far plus it's a pretty good allround lens.

 

The 12mm tube so your 50 and your 28 will behave like macro's. (when you use it they'll only focus close though but

mounting and dismounting is easy)

 

This option leaves some money in the bank which isn't bad either...

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I suggest Canon 60/2.8 macro. Compared to 50/2.5 you get ring-USM focus, 7 blade aperture, and true 1:1</p>

<p>There's a $40 rebate on right now, until March 3. You can get it for $406<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371176-USA/Canon_0284B002_EF_S_60mm_f_2_8_Macro.html<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>You could put the rest of the $ towards a hotshoe flash.</p>

<p> </p>

[tal_sarih]

<p>Thanks everyone :)<br>

I have a couple of questions. <br>

First is, howcome not to buy the 7D?<br>

I don't do too much macro but I enjoy it. I am planing to buy a YN560 soon, so it dosen't concern that budget anyway.<br>

What is beter suited for normal photography? The 35 f/2 or the 28 f/1.8? I am not yet really setteled on what I like to shoot. I like everything exept street photography, but the things I noted up there is what I like the best.<br>

I really want the 7D, but it'll draw me out... And then I have to save up another 1000+ for a 400 5.6...</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>As you are unsatisfied w/ your general purpose zoom (the 18-55) maybe an upgrade to that would be a good idea. For example, the tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great unit, even WO, pair that with a set of extension tubes (for about a hundred bucks), and you've got a set that will allow you a great degree of flexibility. <br>

Of course you could simply do a 17-50/2.8 + a 50/2.5 CM and be within budget plus have an outstanding macro lens (down to 2:1) to get into macro right.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p><em>First is, howcome not to buy the 7D?</em></p>

<p>Your 600D is a very capable camera. Your budget doesn't allow for a 7D. Even if you did save up and put your basic lenses on the 7D, you'll end up with pretty much the exact same photo the 600D would have delivered. You still won't be able to shoot macro.</p>

<p>In general it's suggested you spend most of your money on glass, less on the camera body. You should get a macro lens first, then perhaps a standard zoom (Marcus' suggestion of Tamron 17-50 is a good one, I own this lens) and a surfing telephoto lens, then perhaps a better body.</p>

<p><em>What is beter suited for normal photography? The 35 f/2 or the 28 f/1.8?</em></p>

<p>Not a whole lot of difference between them. Both are good lenses. That said I wouldn't bother with these, get the Tamron 17-50 instead. Deadly sharp, fast, and an awesome bargain. Get 35/2 or 28/1.8 only if you're sure you really need that extra stop of light.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthijs]

The 7D is certainly great. However the 600D uses the same sensor so for image quality you should be able to get similar

results.

 

Body, AF and view finder are a different matter of course.

 

So it's a toss up between new options due to new glass or more comfortable (confidence inspiring) shooting.

 

A hard choice. Maybe you could invest just a small amount in new options (like just a 12mm ring for use with the 18-55

and 50) and use the rest of the money as a starting point for a new body.

[dave_s]

<p>Spend it on travel, to get to where the shots are. Or if you don't know what you need, bank it until you know what you need.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>The 300/4 plus a Canon 500D closeup filter makes a pretty decent macro-substitute.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that's *the* way to go, but offering something else to consider. :)</p>

<p>If you *really* want to get into macro, then nothing beats a dedicated macro lens.</p>

<p>Bodies will come and go. Good lenses will last you (almost) forever. If I were doing it, I'd save up a little more and buy the 100/2.8L macro. Five years from now, that will still be a stellar lens. Five years from now, the 7D will be long forgotten. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>The 7D and the 600d have similar sensors, so the 7d won't necessarily give you better photos, but better lenses will. I like your idea of the 50mm 2.5 for flowers, but since money is an issue, I'd consider getting a used one. They go for as low as $175. The 60mm 2.8 is a better and more versatile lens, but it costs more. Also, another vote for the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>The equipment you have is quite good. Get some experience. Learn about making and composing images. Buy some books. Take some courses; online, even a local college, where an instructor might actually accept a 14 year old who shows enthusiasm. Join a photo club.</p>

<p>The idea that a few technical changes in your equipment will change your photography at this point in life is mistaken. All one will get is the fun or pride of having different stuff. While that has some value, it will not make a photographer as much as gaining more experience and knowledge.</p>

 

[jaydesi]

<p>Where is your current gear most limiting what you want to pursue with photography? Trust me, I know how you feel, having money to spend on gear but not knowing what to buy. You'll limit your chance of disappointment if you spend it filling a need, rather than a want. Once you figure out what you want to do, but can't accomplish with your current gear, you'll have an easier time picking out the gear you really need.</p>

[tal_sarih]

<p>I already (almost, only two more classes) finished a course, in the best Photography school in Israel. We learned basicly every photography department.<br>

And you guys are right about the bodies coming and going. Maybe I should stay with my 600D and save up for a 400 f/5.6, and when a 8D or a 6D or what ever is the coming up 7D mkII, I will buy that.<br>

Thanks all :)</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>I hate the 50 f/1.8's focusing noise and speed, and the lack of sharpness at 1.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't be so fussy, Tal. Realize this is one of the best lenses in your kit. Image 50 years ago when photographers had to actually turn the barrel of the lens themselves to focus, yet they made award winning photos in spite of that. I know equipment lust as well as anyone and can tell you the advantages aren't worth the money. In the future, when more disposable income becomes available to you, sure, indulge your desires, just know you can make<strong> beautiful</strong> photographs with simple equipment. The old saw is true...the most important part of the camera is the six inches behind it. Save your dollars, pick up a Canon 250D close up filter for your 50mm, stop the lens down to f/11 and you will be taking wonderful close-ups in no time. The flowers won't mind a bit of focusing noise and neither should you. Don't make the classic novice mistake of thinking expensive equipment is the road to great photography. Great photography comes from within you, it's not something you can buy.</p>