jeff_bubis

<p>I use a National Geographic NG 1150 Earth Explorer Large backpack. It's rugged and roomy, yet fits in the overhead of an airline without diffiulty. Love it and highly recommend it.</p>

<p>I really like he 35 mm focal length on a crop body. I have both the 35/2 and the 35/1.4. Both are great... I never got rid of the 35/2 because its size makes it very convenient when I travel and I've gotten great shots with both lenses.</p>

<p>Try a Gura Gear Kiboko. It's light, well made, and huge.</p>

<p>Amazon actually does have it listed and you can sign up to be notified when they are selling it:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Fuji-X100-Digital-Fujinon-2-8-Inch/dp/B0043RS864/ref=amb_link_354102822_3?ie=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=top-1&pf_rd_r=1711GHYM8JHH5W5YK380&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=1275869402&pf_rd_i=x100</p>

<p>When I bought the 50/1.8, I was primarily shooting a 40D with the 17-55/2.8 as my walk-around. You definitely don't need it, but I found that it offered several options:<br>

1) it's light 2) the bokeh is a bit better than on the 17-55 3) shooting with primes forces you to frame your images differently because your legs are the zoom. I have found that I think about my shots more than I did when i just shot zooms. This is the cheapest prime you can buy, so you can figure out if this is a style/method that appeals to you with a relatively small investment.<br>

Whether any of these matter to you, it's also not without its faults... It's a bit long on a crop-sensor camera, so while good for portraits, I didn't find it a great focal length for a lot of candid, street shooting etc. You get what you pay for... It's about $100 (you can get it for even less as a refurb), but drop it once and it's probably shot... It is slow focusing. <br>

I rarely use my nifty fifty anymore. I shoot with a 7D and when I want a prime, I use a 35 due to the crop sensor. Some would argue a 24 is even better. Actually, when I want to use a 50 mm (and not my trusty 17-55), I find I turn to my Lensbaby... For a little bit more money, it will open up a world of creative opportunities at the 50 mm focal length.<br>

Good luck, whatever you decide!</p>

<p>I love my 11-16. It's built like a tank, feels great in the hand, and has great IQ. Honestly the only problem I have with it is how hard it was to get... When I bought mine this past summer, it was difficult to find anyone reputable that had it in stock. Go get it... You will not regret it!</p>

Consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8 if its the wide angle that is of importance. It will complement your kit lens well, is built

like a tank, and has great IQ. I find I use it a lot - often I bring only that, a 35/1.4, and a 50 of some type (sometimes a

LensBaby) for my 7D. It's a light kit that's perfect for 90% of what I shoot.

<p>I struggled to find one.. Wound up serendipitously finding one on Amazon. I went on the B&H waiting list in August and just got an email to let me know it was in stock last week! I did not find that the issue was finding one... I found that the issue was finding one at MSRP and not marked up to something I found unrealistic. Good luck.</p>

<p>Don't overlook the Joby Gorillapod. It's cheaper than many alternatives, light, and is very useful even beyond macro photography.</p>

<p>These are all very different lenses. If the fixed aperture is what you are interested in (i.e. the 17-55's), I would consider the Tokina for APS-C. I love my Canon 17-55/2.8 and think it's worth every penny. If you want this more "normal" focal length for APS-C and are considering going FF in the future, you may also want to consider the excellent 16-35/2.8.</p>

<p>Couldn't agree more, Nathan. That is probably the most popular zoom and the one that most needs an update IMHO. Maybe it will come with the 5DMIII.</p>

<p>I have the Tokina and love it, though I haven't used it for architecture. For indoor shots, it's aperture would be hard to beat. As recently as yesterday, though, I've seen used or reconditioned Canon T-S lenses for between $900-$1000, which isn't much more than you'd pay for the 10-22. If you don't have that much money or want something that is a little more general-purpose, the Tokina costs less, is built better, and is a pleasure to use. For me, the 1mm difference on the WA end didn't matter and I've got the 17-55 to pick up where it leaves off on the telephoto end. Honestly, I think you would be happy with either.</p>

<p>This is only my second Tokina lens... My first was a zoom for a Nikon mount SLR in my film days over 10 years ago. I've never had a problem with the reliability of the other - nor have I read about issues with reliability of the lens. It's built like a tank and feels very solid. The rings glide like an L lens. The quality is better than my 17-55 and just about on par with my 35L. Truthfully, I haven't had it long enough to comment on long term reliability, but I haven't heard similar scary stories to those of the Sigma owners.</p>

<p>Love the Tokina, though it can be very hard to find. The Canon has gotten great reviews, but the build and the aperture of the Tokina are hard to beat (and it costs less than the Canon).</p>

<p>Can't say enough about the LX-3... Prices may be coming down now that the LX-5 was announced. That is one camera purchase I've never regretted.</p>

<p>This was recently discussed, but instead of clothes, it was books. The National Geographic Explorer and the Lowepro Compurover were the two I was most interested in. If you don't care about a rain cover, you've got even more options. I bought the NG and really like it.</p>

<p>I've been having the same dilemma. For years, I've used a Loweprow Compurover - the older verson, which has a camera compartment and a separate area for books, nicknacks, etc. Of late, I've been looking for a replacement that has a laptop compartment. They've updated the Compurover to include a laptop bag. There are a few others I've looked at, too - the Tamrac Adventure 10, the Katas, Tenbas, and Clik Elite to name a few. Amazon sells one called the Wolverine, which is only about $100. A requirement for me was a rain cover, which not all of them had. Ultimately, I settled on a National Geographic Explorer Backpack, which I ordered it yesterday. I liked the look, material and the build quality of that batter than some of the others.. Bottom line, though, is that you've got a ton of choices out there. Happy pickings!</p>

<p>Here's a another vote for the Gary Fong Puffer. I've got a 580 EX II, but when I don't feel like carrying it, I always use the Puffer on my 7D. Although other options (even a sheet of copy paper) will give a nice diffusion, they are hard to work with . The puffer comes with an easy hot shoe mount and comes apart to pack compactly in your bag.</p>

<p>I have the Canon and love it. It's got good build quality and faster AF than the Tamron. I've had Tamron lenses in the past, though, and was very satisfied with them. If your primary objective is portraiture, though, you might want to leave enough room in your budget for some good primes - or, at at a minimum the niftty fifty (less than $100 if you shop around). For years, people extolled the virtues of primes, but it wasn't until I started using them that I realized just how wonderful the end result can be - particularly with regard to bokeh and in low light situations.</p>

<p>I use a Sima CapKeeper. It's a tether with an elastic band that goes around the lens. I've never lost and never broken a cap and while caps are fairly inexpensive to replace, it's a pain in the butt if you lose one while you're out shooting and then have to figure out how to protect the lens on your way home.</p>

<p>Try an Invisible Shield. I have one on my 7D and would never consider anything else as it adds no bulk, protects the top LCD, as well, and is completely removable if you ever need to (though not reusable).</p>

<p>I've used a variety of options - the SD400 with the Canon underwater case, the SD900 with the Canon underwater case and the Canon D10. I don't think you can beat Canon for these... None of the other underwater P&S's are nearly as versatile. The advantage of the case is that it goes deeper (133 ft) than the D10 (33 ft), but it's bulkier and looking at the screen through a case still has some limitations. OTOH, it's a single solution. The case is also a little annoying if you're going to the beach, as the sand becomes frustrating in the joints, button holes, etc. The D10 has an expensive accessory package to get a strap that goes around your neck (~$100). I currently use both the D10 and the SD900 depending on where we're going. Really, there's not a right decision - but I do believe the Canon options are superior to the Pentax, Casio, and Panasonic alternatives with regard to image quality. If you go with the D10 and go anywhere near a beach, I'd recommend an Invisible Shield to protect the screen from scratches from the screen.</p>

<p>In Orlando, you might also want to consider Colonial Hobby. Unfortunately, though, they don't have used gear.</p>

<p>I would consider the 17-55/2.8. It's not L build, but it has L IQ and is better suited for your 7D. You could complement that with a 70-200 and would have a great system. If wide angle is important (landscape), I would consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8. If you're into primes, my favorite one on the 7D is the 35/2 or 25/1.4. You can use extension tubes for macro photography (though a macro lens is better). Personally, for my style of shooting, I favor the faster aperture lenses; f4 just isn't fast enough.</p>

<p>If you have a nice lens collection, why not just go FF with a Sony A900 or A850? They have excellent build quality and ergonomics. For the purposes you are describing, I think they would fulfill your needs well.</p>