a question for serious photogs (lenses)

sthigsthig Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
edited April 25, 2006 in Cameras
Hi there,

I've started a savings plan to buy particular lenses to cover a wide series of focal lengths for my year long stay in Puebla, Mexico.

The main thing I intend on shooting is landscapes and street photography. I love taking nature photos and will snap birds and such when I can however I know you need to drop around 6k to get a series nature lens...and I am not aiming for that right now.

Knowing what I'm going for, here is what I have in my bag right now:

20d and a 300d backup
17-40 L
24-70 L
50 mm 1.4
50 mm 2.5 macro (with life size extender -- I take macro shots every now and then...nothing I'm focusing on usually).
85 mm 1.8
Sigma 70-200 with 2x extender on it
430 speedlite
and a plethora of accessories/diffusers/filters...

I have considered getting the 35L and 135 L but I don't know whether that is redundant or not. Oh, and "no" I'm not that interested in the 10-22. I know it's great but the 17-40 serves it's purpose well for me.

Knowing that I'm mostly interested in taking street, portrait, landscape, and "walkabout" pictures...what other lens(es) would you recommend? Or am I at a good point with everything now? It's not like I NEED another lens, mind you, I just put away part of my paycheck each time I get paid as a saving accounts towards cam equipment.

your advice and thoughts are highly appreciated
best,
-Scott
photos: Scojobo.com
illos: sThig.com

Comments

  • gluwatergluwater Registered Users Posts: 3,599 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2006
    Since you are using crop camera I would say go with the 135. Both of these lenses are on my wish list but I cannot justify them yet. I think the 35L is more suited for a Full Frame camera but I have seen people use it for landscapes on a crop sensor. This is a hard choice but since you already have 2 good lenses that cover the 35mm range I would go with the 135 for people shots and walk around lens.

    Like you said you really don't need aonther lens but I think haveing the 135 f/2 would be a nice addition if you can afford it.
    Nick
    SmugMug Technical Account Manager
    Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
    nickwphoto
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2006
    i say save up, sell the 300D and get a 5D and use the 20D as a back-upthumb.gif

    and maybe upgrade the Sigma 70-200 to Canon just because i'm a brand-wh0re lol3.gif
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • devbobodevbobo Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,339 SmugMug Employee
    edited April 24, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    i say save up, sell the 300D and get a 5D and use the 20D as a back-upthumb.gif

    :nono IR mod your 300D
    David Parry
    SmugMug API Developer
    My Photos
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2006
    devbobo wrote:
    :nono IR mod your 300D

    :nah sell both and buy 2 5D's and IR mod one... aint that right andy. lol3.gif
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2006
    The definition of serious my not be as clear as I think :)

    The 135/2 is one of the best lenses optically that canon offers. The F2 gives you a full stop over the 70-200. I am not sure of the optics of the Sigma, but I imagine they are a bit less than Canon so the 135 will give you a big boost when you need it.

    The 35/1.4 is close to the 50/1.4 and the 24-70 covers 35mm nicely. So I think the 135 is your better choice.

    I think the 20D is capable of a lot of things. If you upgraded your 300D to a 350D you will have the same DigicII chip as the 20D so you can do similar things with ISO.

    Hope that helps.
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • sthigsthig Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2006
    stupid question

    IR = Infra Red, right? So I know this is going to sound "oh god what a noob" but...how do you IR your 300d?

    5d is on my wishlist.

    oh my sigma 70-200 stops to 2.8 and 5.6 with the extender. It's a tad soft, but not enough for me to complain about. That's one reason I'd like the 135L
    -Scott
    photos: Scojobo.com
    illos: sThig.com
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2006
    sthig wrote:
    stupid question

    IR = Infra Red, right? So I know this is going to sound "oh god what a noob" but...how do you IR your 300d?

    www.maxmax.com infared camera mods. just search for Infared in the search bar here on Dgrin and you'll come up with a ton of examples and such....
    5d is on my wishlist.
    me too
    oh my sigma 70-200 stops to 2.8 and 5.6 with the extender. It's a tad soft, but not enough for me to complain about. That's one reason I'd like the 135L

    talking about a 2x? what about a 1.4 extender? that way you'd have 98-280 f/4 coveredthumb.gif
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • sthigsthig Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2006
    1.4 = perhaps so, perhaps so.
    -Scott
    photos: Scojobo.com
    illos: sThig.com
  • MarkM6MarkM6 Registered Users Posts: 97 Big grins
    edited April 25, 2006
    Mannnnn that 135L
    Bob Bell wrote:
    The 135/2 is one of the best lenses optically that canon offers.

    If I had $1 every time I read this statement, I would have owned 135L f2 and 35L f2.8 by now.

    I think 135L is one awesome lens and price is lower than other L-Series lenses.
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2006
    You're pretty much set, except for a fast wide for street work.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2006
    MarkM6 wrote:
    If I had $1 every time I read this statement, I would have owned 135L f2 and 35L f2.8 by now.

    I think 135L is one awesome lens and price is lower than other L-Series lenses.

    In the grand scheme of thing the 135L is cheap. The only real alternatives for 135L is the 70-200L which is a few hundred sheckles more :)
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2006
    sthig wrote:

    The main thing I intend on shooting is landscapes and street photography.

    Knowing that I'm mostly interested in taking street, portrait, landscape, and "walkabout" pictures...what other lens(es) would you recommend? Or am I at a good point with everything now? It's not like I NEED another lens, mind you, I just put away part of my paycheck each time I get paid as a saving accounts towards cam equipment.

    your advice and thoughts are highly appreciated
    best,

    70-300 DO IS, because you never know when you'll want the reach.

    Canon 5D with 24-105 f/4L IS lens.:D
  • SeefutlungSeefutlung Registered Users Posts: 2,781 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2006
    If you want a lens that will expand your shooting capabilities ... then get a Sigma 50-500 (Bigma). As sharp as the 100-400 (Dust Pumper), with greater range, no IS, for a lot less $$$. You will never regret purchasing this lens.
    My snaps can be found here:
    Unsharp at any Speed
Sign In or Register to comment.