james_legan

<p>At this point I am sold on the returning of the 2.0x extender and replacing it with:</p>

<p>Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (B+W MRC UV & Hood)</p>

 

<p>I was just looking into the reviews of the 1.4 vs 2.0 extender on the 70-200 and I do not know how I missed all of them. I guess I failed to do a comparison of the two, just the extenders on the lens.</p>

<p>Here is what I am considering (because macro photography is something I am interested in).</p>

<p>Return the 2.0x extender and pick up:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>EF-S 60mm macro</li>

<li>Either the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. </li>

</ol>

<p>The question on the 50mm is whether or not the extra $240 is worth it.</p>

 

<p>That is why I originally picked up the 17-55 with my 50D (which I am selling to move to the 7D). I am wondering though if the 10-22 will be "enough" for close quarters. I love the 2.8 on the 17-55 and am note sure if the 24-105's speed will cause me to regret the decision.</p>

<p>I really cannot spend too much more money on the gear at this point, but several of these items are still in the returnable time frame, the grip and converter being two of them.</p>

<p>From a focal length standpoint I currently have 10-22 and 17-55 covered (1.6x). I cannot justify having both the 17-55 and the 24-105. Is the loss of a stop on the 24-105 worth the extended reach?</p>

<p>The 400 prime is around $1000. If I pursued it, I would dump the extender all together as my goal with it was to give my 70-200 the extra reach when needed. I would still need to come up with another $700 to cover the difference.</p>

<p>This may seem like an odd post, but I visit this forum often and glean a tremendous amount of insight from all of you. To that end, I would like to ask for your assessment of the kit I have assembled. There was always something that intrigued me about photography and after buying a D90 (and selling it for reasons other than a love of photography), I knew I needed to get another decent camera. Since then, I have been putting together a kit for serious amateur photography and a 2 week trip to Hawaii in October.</p>

<p>Below is a list of my gear. I have two questions for all of you:</p>

<p>1) Is there anything glaringly missing from my list? I do want to get a wired remote release before the 4th of July to take advantage of some bulb mode photography.</p>

<p>2) Is there anything else I should plan on taking on the trip? When we are out and about, I will likely not take my full bag but rather my spider holster, 70-200 and 10-22 with my polarizing filter.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your input.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Canon 7D Gripped</li>

<li>Canon 580EX II</li>

<li>Canon 10-22mm f/35-4.5 (B+W MRC UV)</li>

<li>Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (B+W MRC UV)</li>

<li>Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (B+W MRC UV)</li>

<li>Canon 2.0x Extender</li>

<li>Wireless Remote Release</li>

<li>B+W Slim Circular Polarizing Filter</li>

<li>Lumiquest 80/20</li>

<li>Manfrotto Ball Head</li>

<li>Benro Carbon Fiber Monopod</li>

<li>CyberPack 8 Backpack</li>

<li>Spider Holster</li>

</ul>

<p>Ok,</p>

<p>I did a lot of playing today. How does the following setup sound:</p>

<p>50D (body only)<br />17-55mm f2.8<br />580EX II<br />Fong Collapsible Cloud Diffuser (got to play with this at the local photo shop today)</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>I can hold off on a longer zoom and possibly a faster prime down the road, possibly the sigma 30mm.</p>

<p>Robert,<br>

I heavily researched the K-7 from Pentax and that 40mm pancake lens was especially appealing. However, after I got to play with both of them, I ruled out the Pentax due to some IQ concerns (could have been the one I was using) and upgradability should I go that way down the road.</p>

 

<p>Ken,<br>

Would you suggest the Canon 35mm f2 over the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Canon 28mm f1.8?<br>

I am looking at the reviews and it seems like both are a lot more lens for approx $100 more.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jim</p>

<p>To make a long story short, I had for a brief time last year a Nikon D90. It took great pictures, but I was not completely sold on owning a camera that expensive (actually, I was not sold on spending that much money on Nikkor glass). Now that I have been DSLR free for the better part of a year, I miss it terribly. I have gotten the chance to play with the 50D and I have decided to go Canon instead of Nikon for round two since I am starting from scratch.<br /><br />Here in lies my problem... The glass.<br /><br />Right now I am torn between 3 lenses and I can really only afford one of them for the forseeable future. This may see like an odd assortment, but let me preface the list with the type of pictures I like to take. I do a lot of indoor photography (people, pets, etc...). I do not do a ton of action shots. I am not a huge fan of flash photography and when I had my D90, my 50mm 1.8 prime was on it almost exclusively (although the only other lens I had was the kit). I love deep smooth bokeh and the type of photos I took with it and enjoyed the most were something like this:<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.legan.me/Animals/Andromeda-Rommie/A-star-was-born/Rommie-Jasmine-and/439658818_UacJF-M.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

<p>Ok, so here are the lenses:<br /><br />1) Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM<br />2) Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM<br /><br />Both will run me $1K+. I was originally leaning towards getting non-L glass and getting an assortment, but I would rather get one solid lens and have it for a while and get a zoom/prime later if it will be reflected in the pictures. The aperture difference is significant which is why I am torn. I have no problem shooting prime and sneaker zooming around if it means stopping life in natural or ambient light.<br /><br />Also, should I just get over my flash photography issue and get the 580EX II while I am at it?<br />Should I forgoe the L glass in leiu of nice consumer glass on a 50D crop body?<br /><br />Thanks in advance,<br /><br />Jim</p>