Help spend my money

[Ann McRae]

Upcoming major photo ops:

4 days in southern alberta prairie - expect landscapes and macros, maybe some wildlife

5 days at the ocean/rainforest on Vancouver Island

DGrin Shootout in October

Current line up:

24 - 105f4L
50mmf1.2
85mmf1.8
135mmf2
70 - 200 f2.8
300mmf4

Do I buy:

100mm macro
1.4x TCon
tilt shift
ultra wide

Other suggestions, and reasons why?

Thanks

ann

[AaronNelson]

i would vote T/S........macro close 2nd......

[swintonphoto]

The thing that seems to be missing the most to me in your setup is a nice ultra wide angle lens. I recently got one and am in England right now taking it for a spin. I have never really used an ultra wide angle lens, and it has really opened up a whole new world of composition creation for me. It has been amazing. I can't keep it off my camera.
That would be my vote hands down.

ULTRA-WIDE LENS

[Ann McRae]

The thing that seems to be missing the most to me in your setup is a nice ultra wide angle lens. I recently got one and am in England right now taking it for a spin. I have never really used an ultra wide angle lens, and it has really opened up a whole new world of composition creation for me. It has been amazing. I can't keep it off my camera.
That would be my vote hands down.

ULTRA-WIDE LENS


Which one (I mean focal length mostly). I can't buy the 10 - 22 because it won't work on the 1d.....

[Ann McRae]

i would vote T/S........macro close 2nd......

The only thing that eeps me thinking about the macro is I can get the Canon discount on it right now. That and the bugs in my garden! :rofl

[DavidTO]

Ann,

Get the 24 TS/E and the Nikkor 16mm fisheye, with adapter. Marc knows where to get the adapter. I'll ask him about it.

I have the 24 and love it. I'm drooling on that 16 fish.

[InsuredDisaster]

I recently got a 10-20mm for my set up. I love it!

[KED]

Well, I just rounded out my lineup -- permanently I hope, with a 16 - 35 2.8L II. Maybe not ultra-wide, but wide enough, and it's a lovely lens.

[Ann McRae]

Ann,

Get the 24 TS/E and the Nikkor 16mm fisheye, with adapter. Marc knows where to get the adapter. I'll ask him about it.

I have the 24 and love it. I'm drooling on that 16 fish.

David - is the 16 fish eye the one Schmoo took to Scotland?

Can I figure out how to use the TS on my own?

ann

[davev]

How much of your cash do we get to spend?:dunno

So you're shooting full frame now Eh.

The 17-40 is good wide angle, so I've heard. (I don't have one)

The 100 macro will probably just sit in your camera bag after a week or two of playing with it.
At least that's what my 50mm F2.5 macro does. They're neat a few times a year, but after that, it just takes up space.
Use your closest ratio lens (1:3.5 or something like that) and crop.

The T/S lenses look pretty cool. If you buy one, you should probably get it soon to learn the ins and outs of it.
I got a feeling that there may be a bit of a learning curve with it.

The 1.4 TC for the 300 and the 70-200 makes sense. You get a little more reach without gaining
much weight in the bag, or spending a lot.

So, because I'm cheap, I'd get the 1.4 TC and a 17-40L.
You get a wider angle and more reach for under a grand.

See you in October.

[Ann McRae]

I recently got a 10-20mm for my set up. I love it!
I thought that would be my next purchase, but it doesn't work on my 1d and I almost never use the 20d any more!

ann

[Ann McRae]

Well, I just rounded out my lineup -- permanently I hope, with a 16 - 35 2.8L II. Maybe not ultra-wide, but wide enough, and it's a lovely lens.

Yeah, I used to have the 17 - 85 as my walk around, now the 24 - 105 is lacking that wide end. Thanks for the tip - I'll think about it!

[Ann McRae]

How much of your cash do we get to spend?:dunno

So you're shooting full frame now Eh.

The 17-40 is good wide angle, so I've heard. (I don't have one)

The 100 macro will probably just sit in your camera bag after a week or two of playing with it.
At least that's what my 50mm F2.5 macro does. They're neat a few times a year, but after that, it just takes up space.
Use your closest ratio lens (1:3.5 or something like that) and crop.

The T/S lenses look pretty cool. If you buy one, you should probably get it soon to learn the ins and outs of it.
I got a feeling that there may be a bit of a learning curve with it.

The 1.4 TC for the 300 and the 70-200 makes sense. You get a little more reach without gaining
much weight in the bag, or spending a lot.

So, because I'm cheap, I'd get the 1.4 TC and a 17-40L.
You get a wider angle and more reach for under a grand.

See you in October.

Eh, Davev, so like hows it goin eh?
The 1d is 1.3 not full, but it is fast and soooo sweet.
Not sure how much to spend. My annual 'profit share' was less than I hoped, so instead of investing it I might spend it:rofl How's that for female logic!!!
Seriously, I have earned about !.5K on sports so far this summer, and that is what I use that money for. Bought the printer for $350 so I have just over a grand.
Really want the 1.4TC.
Been shooting bee macros with the 300 lately! :wink
Seen awfully nice stuff from the TS.
And I'll have to shop south of the border to get the proper pricing!

Hope to see you in October!

ann

[Marc Muench]

Ann,

Get the 24 TS/E and the Nikkor 16mm fisheye, with adapter. Marc knows where to get the adapter. I'll ask him about it.

I have the 24 and love it. I'm drooling on that 16 fish.
Ann,

Here (http://www.camerahacker.com/Novoflex/EOSNIK.shtml) is the info regarding the adapter I use for my Nikor 16mm fish. If you want to be efficient, I agree with the 17-40 choice. However, with a bit of space in the pack/camer bag, I would choose the 24mm TS and the fish.

[swintonphoto]

Which one (I mean focal length mostly). I can't buy the 10 - 22 because it won't work on the 1d.....
I personally might be a bit hesitant to use a fisheye. I think it would be a great lens to have, but you might use a normal wide angle more.
So, in terms of which one, I think there are a few options. One rout is to get a wide zoom like the Sigma 12-24mm or the Sigma 15-30mm. Or, you could get a wide angle prime like the Canon 20mm, the Canon 14mm, or the Tamrom 14mm.

I think all of those work with a larger sensor.
If I was choosing I would go with one of the Sigma zooms. Popphoto has some good reviews on them.

[puzzledpaul]

<< Use your closest ratio lens (1:3.5 or something like that) and crop >>

Ok-ish if not partic. interested in macro, but you're throwing away approx. 92% of the pixels compared with filling the frame (with the cropped scene) @ 1:1 with a macro lens.

Am biased - but macro gear opens up a whole new world (imo) :)

pp

[Ann McRae]

Well, get this:

24mmTS from a Canadian retailer Cdn$1629 (=$1612USD)
24mmTS from B&H USD$1150 (=Cdn$1161)

The $468 difference almost fund the macro ($599 and then $100 rebate!)

ann

[Nikolai]

Upcoming major photo ops:
4 days in southern alberta prairie - expect landscapes and macros, maybe some wildlife
5 days at the ocean/rainforest on Vancouver Island
DGrin Shootout in October


TS 24mm and 16-35 (or 10-22 if you're still living in EF-S world) go first. Both prairie and Utah would ask for those.
10-22 was one of my most used lenses both in Utah 2006 (30D) and Montana 2007 (40D). I also liked TS 24 in Utah, but now Marc owns it :wink :rofl

Then 100mm macro for bugs and flowers (and occasional portraits) if that's your thing...

[DavidTO]

TS 24mm and 16-35 (or 10-22 if you're still living in EF-S world) go first. Both prairie and Utah would ask for those.
10-22 was one of my most used lenses both in Utah 2006 (30D) and Montana 2007 (40D). I also liked TS 24 in Utah, but now Marc owns it :wink :rofl

Then 100mm macro for bugs and flowers (and occasional portraits) if that's your thing...


16-35 is a waste of money for landscapes, IMO. May not be all you're shooting, Ann, but think about the 17-40. You lose a stop, but big deal unless you're shooting low light a lot.

Either is equivalent to the 10-22 on her 1d, so it's all the same.

[Ann McRae]

16-35 is a waste of money for landscapes, IMO. May not be all you're shooting, Ann, but think about the 17-40. You lose a stop, but big deal unless you're shooting low light a lot.

Either is equivalent to the 10-22 on her 1d, so it's all the same.

I am certain that right now I will only be buying one "wide", so with that in mind should it be the TS or the 17 - 40 (going to look if the 17 - 40 is rebate eligible)?

ann

EDIT: 17 - 40 is $819 less $40 less $150 rebate. Bundled rebates (printer/100 macro?) could make it all within budget!:wink

EDIT 2: Total $1899 and total rebate $450, right into that $1500 mark!

[DavidTO]

I am certain that right now I will only be buying one "wide", so with that in mind should it be the TS or the 17 - 40 (going to look if the 17 - 40 is rebate eligible)?

ann


Depends on the purpose.

For landscapes, the TS. If you need something more versatile and includes auto-focus, then the 17-40. :deal

[AaronNelson]

I am certain that right now I will only be buying one "wide", so with that in mind should it be the TS or the 17 - 40 (going to look if the 17 - 40 is rebate eligible)?

ann

well if you think about it, the 24mm T/S with both shifts merged with the center expo is 16mm.......(i think)

look it up to verify i have that correct...

and the bonus is less distortions on far sides compared to ultrawides...(so i have been told):dunno

the only thing with this 24 t/s i dont like is...that since it has manual focus a 2x mag view finder is helpful (needed in my case)

[DavidTO]

the only thing with this 24 t/s i dont like is...that since it has manual focus a 2x mag view finder is needed/helpful (in my case)


Live View!!!! :deal

[AaronNelson]

Live View!!!! :deal

show me the money:deal

[Nikolai]

Live View!!!!
IIRC Ann has 1DMkIIn, they didn' have LiveView feature at the time...
OTOH for the landscapes/prime going hyperfocal is the key, IMHO

[KED]

FWIW, I have this and the 2.0 and, at least for now, stopped using both. For sports, I'm getting just as many really good shots leaving it off, and while I have no scientific basis for saying this, I think my AF (servo mode) seems more reliable. This is on the Mk III, where AI Servo is still a question mark.

[Ann McRae]

FWIW, I have this and the 2.0 and, at least for now, stopped using both. For sports, I'm getting just as many really good shots leaving it off, and while I have no scientific basis for saying this, I think my AF (servo mode) seems more reliable. This is on the Mk III, where AI Servo is still a question mark.


Thanks. I didn't want the TC for sports tho, because I am able to do just fine with the 300 on the 1D. Wildlife/birds would be my reason for wanting it.


ann

[Ann McRae]

IIRC Ann has 1DMkIIn, they didn' have LiveView feature at the time...
OTOH for the landscapes/prime going hyperfocal is the key, IMHO

Yes, Nik, you're right about it being the 1DMkII.

I do not know what 'prime going hyperfocal' means...:dunno

[Nikolai]

Yes, Nik, you're right about it being the 1DMkII.
I do my homework :wink

I do not know what 'prime going hyperfocal' means...:dunno
Prime - i.e. fixed focal length - lens is much easier to deal with calculation wise. Simply go to www.dofmaster.com (http://www.dofmaster.com) and print out a chart of HF (hyperfocal) distances, i.e. the distances that provide a maximum in-focus coverages from X to infinity at any given aperture. There is an explanation on that site of what HF/CoC/etc. are, too ...

[mackidbrendan]

Upcoming major photo ops:

4 days in southern alberta prairie - expect landscapes and macros, maybe some wildlife



how south?

and i was going o plus the 11-16 but since u mentioned the 1D i would have to say the 17-40 or the 16-35 if u have the cashola.

[Ann McRae]

how south?

and i was going o plus the 11-16 but since u mentioned the 1D i would have to say the 17-40 or the 16-35 if u have the cashola.

Cypress Hills/Medicine Hat for summer games and landscape shooting. Any recommendations for locations?

ann

[Ann McRae]

I'm thinking that the 16 - 35 is out of range. $1800cdn, eligible for a $200 rebate. Think I am better off with the 17 - 40 AND either the 100 macro or the 1.4 TC. The TS kinda scares me!

Okay, here is my last question - since tomorrow i will be picking up the printer and drooling over lenses.

Is the TS suitable for architecture and close street shots? I think I missed the 17mm- 24mm range that I used to have with the 17 - 85mm when in Washington and again in Chicago

ann

[davev]

Ann, looking at your lens line up, other than the macro ability, I wouldn't think that you need another lens
at the 100mm size.

You already have an 85mm, 135mm, and the 70-200 zoom.
The macro is really a one trick pony for your lineup.

Maybe a set of extension tubes would be a better way to go. ( LINK (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html) )

Although using these may not be quite as good as a dedicated macro lens, they can be used with every lens you have.
( I haven't used any tubes, just going by what I've read )

So, if I'm spending your money, I'm buying a set of tubes, the 17-40L, a 1.4 TC.

Although you might miss out on some of the canon rebates this way, the total cost will be less,
and you'll be gaining macro ability, a wide angle, and your 300 becomes a 420.

[Ann McRae]

Ann, looking at your lens line up, other than the macro ability, I wouldn't think that you need another lens
at the 100mm size.

You already have an 85mm, 135mm, and the 70-200 zoom.
The macro is really a one trick pony for your lineup.

Maybe a set of extension tubes would be a better way to go. ( LINK (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html) )

Although using these may not be quite as good as a dedicated macro lens, they can be used with every lens you have.
( I haven't used any tubes, just going by what I've read )

So, if I'm spending your money, I'm buying a set of tubes, the 17-40L, a 1.4 TC.

Although you might miss out on some of the canon rebates this way, the total cost will be less,
and you'll be gaining macro ability, a wide angle, and your 300 becomes a 420.

You are absolutely right. I am contemplating selling the 85mm. My boss wants to start shooting indoor soccer and dance and I don't anymore. I just guided him through buying the 40d rather than the XT, and implied that the 85 migh be available.

Hadn't thought of extension tubes. Verrrrry interesting! :wink

[DavidTO]

Ann,

The TS is designed for architecture.

[Marc Muench]

show me the money:deal
nice avatar dude:clap

[AaronNelson]

marc, why thank ya, ive been trying to decide on one....and since thats one of my better captures i say why not:ivar

ann, i think you may not see this before you go to the store....but if so let me just say, good luck! deciding on lenses is a bugger.....

i have had 6 different lenses, and if i was to only have one, it would be the T/S due to the fact most of my photog is architecture or vast expanse wilderness....

so think about what your going to need more....

in reading your posts i think you want to go into macro...i say do it!

[mackidbrendan]

Cypress Hills/Medicine Hat for summer games and landscape shooting. Any recommendations for locations?

ann

awesome.
well i would say that u deffinaltely need to snap some pics of the biggest teepee in the world, i think:scratch . and the going into the city, from the west, there is quite a view from the bridge.

[Ann McRae]

What, besides 17 - 24mm range does the 17 - 40 get me? If I'm looking for that range, would the 17 - 55 f2.8 be better?

Is there a prime that would be good instead?

Oh Major confusion. And intimidation about the Tilt Shift.

Still haven't gone shopping - too many chores.

ann

[DavidTO]

What, besides 17 - 24mm range does the 17 - 40 get me? If I'm looking for that range, would the 17 - 55 f2.8 be better?

Is there a prime that would be good instead?

Oh Major confusion. And intimidation about the Tilt Shift.

Still haven't gone shopping - too many chores.

ann


17-40 gets you 1d compatibility and doesn't flare as horribly as the 17-55.

[davev]

17-40 gets you 1d compatibility and doesn't flare as horribly as the 17-55.

Exactly.

Most, if not all of the 17-50's I think are for cropped sensor cameras.
I know my Tamron is.

[Ann McRae]

To the camera store and back with only the printer.

They have the 17 - 40 in stock, but really don't think I need that.
They have the 1.4X TC for $419 so I think I'll look for a used one.
They have the remote shutter for $99
They can bring the TS in, but their price is $1700 so that will be coming across the border too.

More time to think I guess. First trip is early August.

Thanks for your help, folks.

ann

[KED]

To the camera store and back with only the printer.

They have the 17 - 40 in stock, but really don't think I need that.
They have the 1.4X TC for $419 so I think I'll look for a used one.
They have the remote shutter for $99
They can bring the TS in, but their price is $1700 so that will be coming across the border too.

More time to think I guess. First trip is early August.

Thanks for your help, folks.

annI got my 1.4X at B&H for $280 less than a year ago. Either your camera store is ripping you off or this is a reflection of the deterioration of the dollar; do yourself a favor and check out all your wishlist items at B&H.

PS is the remote shutter you refer to the Canon remote shutter release? Just got that too from B&H for $50, which I presumed to be MSRP for such a small item.