Can't decide...do I NEED any new hardware?

eoren1

I'm torn and thought I would come here for someone to set me straight...
I've now owned a dSLR (the Canon 350D) for 2 years. With it, I have the following lineup (with samples of what I take with them):
Sigma 30mm f/1.4




Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 mk I


Canon EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5




Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens


I've spent way too much time on dpreview and elsewhere and have convinced myself that I need one if not all of the following:
1. Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS to replace the 70-210
Reason: I currently underutilize this lens but am using it mainly for outdoor photos of my 21 month old son. Also occasional landscape work and the rare trip to the D.C. Zoo (4 blocks from the house). Wondering if I've hit the limits of the lens as I usually stop down to 5.6 if I can to ensure a sharp shot. IS would be quite nice.

2. Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 to use in place of the 70-210
Reason: Mostly using the 70-210 zoom for portrait work. Fast lens would help with keeping up with a two year old. Currently using the 50 for head/shoulder portraits which works pretty well.

3. Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 to replace the kit lens
Reason: Do a bit of landscape. Some architecture. Expect this would be used mostly on vacations though. Sounds like a sharp lens capable of very interesting compositions and perspectives.

4. Canon 30D (or rumored 40D) to replace the 350D
Reason: More and better AF points a plus with toddler shots. Improved high ISO performance. Though I actually do like the small size (ie portability) of the 350D with 30 or 50 on.

5. Extension tubes
Reason: Have another baby on the way and would like to be able to take close-ups (eyelashes, fingernails, etc). Not true macro work.

6. Macbook vs Macbook Pro
Reason: Finally ready to jump ship from the PC camp and head to the Mac. Would use the laptop for PP (likely with an additional display) and culling photos on trips. Also for run of the mill stuff around the house/work.

I expect that I'll have about $2000 by year's end to play with the above. I could just as easily spend it on glass or body or the laptop. Not sure if I have hit the point where my equipment is limiting me and I need to upgrade.
Greatly appreciate your thoughts,
E

Hindsight

No you don't need to spend a dime. Save it for the baby. Do the smart thing and make the best of what you have.









NAAAAAAA!! TOYS!

eoren1

Thanks for that and I like the nickname....

DJ-S1

If you really have fun money to spend, I would start with the 30D. I had a DReb and upgraded to the 20D and then the 30D. The 30 is really worth the $ IMO. You will love it.

As for lenses, you really don't have anything in the 24-70 range on your list. I think if you went 10-22 and 70-200, you'd have too big a gap and the kit lens isn't that great. Have you considered the 24-105 f/4 IS? Unless you need low light a lot it is a very good lens for everyday stuff. Plus you have the 50 1.8 and the 30 1.4 already.

I love my 70-200 f4 (non-IS). I don't think you can go wrong with this lens, it is a great value lens and an L to boot. I would never sell this lens (unless it's for the 2.8 version!).

The 10-22 is a fun lens, I sold mine to a friend recently. If you are into architecture or big landscapes it is very valuable. It was a bit expensive for my occasional use of it, though.

My 2 cents, given for free and worth every penny!

thegridrunner

I think you have a good setup right now. Maybe a little glass or extension tube but like hindsight says, use it on the baby (most of the money at least)

eoren1

DJ-S1 wrote:

If you really have fun money to spend, I would start with the 30D. I had a DReb and upgraded to the 20D and then the 30D. The 30 is really worth the $ IMO. You will love it.

Good point. I'm eagerly waiting the 40D to see what it offers and, better yet, what it does to the 30D's price.

DJ-S1 wrote:

As for lenses, you really don't have anything in the 24-70 range on your list. I think if you went 10-22 and 70-200, you'd have too big a gap and the kit lens isn't that great. Have you considered the 24-105 f/4 IS? Unless you need low light a lot it is a very good lens for everyday stuff. Plus you have the 50 1.8 and the 30 1.4 already.

I've got the primes there and tend to think of that range as indoors stuff.

DJ-S1 wrote:

I love my 70-200 f4 (non-IS). I don't think you can go wrong with this lens, it is a great value lens and an L to boot. I would never sell this lens (unless it's for the 2.8 version!).

I was thinking about the non-IS version as it is quite reasonable but feel that I will use the IS a good deal. I find myself wishing that my 70-210 could be handheld at slower speeds now.

DJ-S1 wrote:

The 10-22 is a fun lens, I sold mine to a friend recently. If you are into architecture or big landscapes it is very valuable. It was a bit expensive for my occasional use of it, though.

That's what I'm afraid of. A 'fun' lens that comes out only every so often and doesn't justify the price tag.

DJ-S1 wrote:

My 2 cents, given for free and worth every penny!

May be free but greatly appreciated!

sirsloop

eoren1 wrote:

Isnt this in Ithaca, NY.... or down in DC somewhere??

eoren1

It's in DC. Called 'Awakening' and can be found in Haines Point. It's going to be moved soon to a new development in Maryland called the National Harbor.
E

sirsloop

I swear they have somthing just like that in a park just north of Ithaca on the east side. I can't remember the name... but it was very similar...

ok back on topic. The 70-200/4L , 85/1.8, and 10-22... all lenses enjoy using. The 10-22 may seem like a "one use" lens, but its actually pretty nice for just walking around. Once you get used to how its photos look, you can really work some magic with it. Ya know... go on a day trip with just your 10-22. Go home, review the shots, and next time out you'll definitely begin "seeing wide".

Would I make the upgrade, yeah, but I work shows pay for this stuff. If you are comfortable tossing in a couple grand out of pocket then why the heck not? Its fine gear that'll outlast your 350D, 40D, and probably your next body after that.

cmason

This one is tough I think. The primes you have are great, especially that mk1 50mm. I would keep those. The other two are the candidates for replacement.

I LOVE the 70-200 f4L, absolutely brilliant lens, and by the way, a very good portrait lens. Yes it looks odd in a small room, but 70-100 is a great range when you don't have much room for 'foot zoom". I have played with IS on long lenses, and they are nice, but I have found that a $50 monopod does wonders for lower speed shots, so IS isn't that big a factor for me. In my opinion, this lens is a must have, espcially since it is the most affordable L lens.

I also have a 10-20, and it is brilliant for landscape as well as cool indoor shots, but it is the least used in my bag. A recommendation: keep your kit lens for the occasional wide shot. It isnt worth selling, and it will offer you the occasional wide range. You likely wont do it that often, and if you do, you can then later justify the expense of a good wide lens.

What I think you are really missing is your high quaility 'walk around " lens, or the one you leave on your camera most of the time. I am a huge fan of my Tamron 28-75, and it is very very sharp and bright. For around $300, it is very hard to beat.

However, you must seriously consider the 24-105 f4L, probably one of the finest 'walk around' lenses ever made. It has the range you need, and offers IS.

If you have $2000 to spend, lenses are the a great place to spend it as you will see the biggest difference in the images, and they can be used with any future bodies. The 24-105L + the 70-200L will be ideal, and last you a lifetime.

Good luck

claudermilk

From those shots, I'd say you are making great use of the gear you have. Truly no "need" to add anything. Some thoughts anyway (that's what we're here for, right? ).

I'm not sure if moving from the 70-210 to a 70-200/4 is going to make much difference. It's about the same effective speed; yes the IS version will help with handholding static shots, but will do nothing for catching fast-moving toddlers--it'll take the f2.8 version to bump your shutter speed for that. Your fireworks shot is far better than my one attempt with a 20D+70-200/2.8L--so it proves the gear isn't the key. ...:cry

The "holes" on the lineup are indeed a UWA zoom and a good walkaround zoom. The walkarounds would be the 24-105/4L, 24-70/2.8L, 17-55/2.8IS, Sigma 24-70/2.8, and Tamron 17-50/2.8. I only have personal experience with the 24-70 and love it. The rest all have sizable followings that love them.

For the UWA, it really boils down to two contenders: Canon's 10-22/3.5-4.5 and Tokina's 12-24/4. Both are excellent lenses and both have rabid followings. I fall into the Tokina camp. Run a search here and on FredMiranda for several recent heated debates.

Of your proposed additions, I'd almost say grab the extension tubes as a quick, cheap fix for the gear acquisition bug. You can find the Kenko sets on ebay for under $100.

eoren1

sirsloop wrote:

ok back on topic. The 70-200/4L , 85/1.8, and 10-22... all lenses enjoy using. The 10-22 may seem like a "one use" lens, but its actually pretty nice for just walking around. Once you get used to how its photos look, you can really work some magic with it. Ya know... go on a day trip with just your 10-22. Go home, review the shots, and next time out you'll definitely begin "seeing wide".

I think I'll be renting the UWA for a week when I have some time to spend with it and look around DC or on a vacation. That'll probably be the best way to decide if it fits my shooting styles or, better yet, pushes me in a new direction!

sirsloop wrote:

Would I make the upgrade, yeah, but I work shows pay for this stuff. If you are comfortable tossing in a couple grand out of pocket then why the heck not? Its fine gear that'll outlast your 350D, 40D, and probably your next body after that.

All things being equal, I would rather save it or spend it on a good vacation. If I get to the point where it's really burning a hole in my pocket, I'll no longer feel the NEED to justify the purchases...

eoren1

cmason wrote:

This one is tough I think. The primes you have are great, especially that mk1 50mm. I would keep those. The other two are the candidates for replacement.

Agreed.

cmason wrote:

What I think you are really missing is your high quaility 'walk around " lens, or the one you leave on your camera most of the time. I am a huge fan of my Tamron 28-75, and it is very very sharp and bright. For around $300, it is very hard to beat. However, you must seriously consider the 24-105 f4L, probably one of the finest 'walk around' lenses ever made. It has the range you need, and offers IS.

Good point about the walk-around. Currently I use the 30 for that and am happy with it. I think 24 might not be wide enough if I stick with a crop body and am starting to think about the 17-55/2.8 IS for that. Of course that's a $1000 by itself. Maybe I'll rent it and see....

Thanks for the thoughts.
E

eoren1

claudermilk wrote:

From those shots, I'd say you are making great use of the gear you have. Truly no "need" to add anything. Some thoughts anyway (that's what we're here for, right? ).

Thanks and Yes!

claudermilk wrote:

I'm not sure if moving from the 70-210 to a 70-200/4 is going to make much difference. It's about the same effective speed; yes the IS version will help with handholding static shots, but will do nothing for catching fast-moving toddlers--it'll take the f2.8 version to bump your shutter speed for that. Your fireworks shot is far better than my one attempt with a 20D+70-200/2.8L--so it proves the gear isn't the key. ...:cry

Good point about the 2.8 to keep up with the toddler. Pretty darn pricy and I can't imagine carrying it around attached to a tiny (in comparison) 350D.

claudermilk wrote:

The "holes" on the lineup are indeed a UWA zoom and a good walkaround zoom. The walkarounds would be the 24-105/4L, 24-70/2.8L, 17-55/2.8IS, Sigma 24-70/2.8, and Tamron 17-50/2.8. I only have personal experience with the 24-70 and love it. The rest all have sizable followings that love them.

I've thought about the 17-55 and will wait to see what Canon does with the 40D to help me decide whether I'm ready to stay in the crop body (most likely). Then I'll probably feel a bit better about dropping $1000 on that lens.

claudermilk wrote:

For the UWA, it really boils down to two contenders: Canon's 10-22/3.5-4.5 and Tokina's 12-24/4. Both are excellent lenses and both have rabid followings. I fall into the Tokina camp. Run a search here and on FredMiranda for several recent heated debates.

Heard good things about both. As I mentioned earlier, I'll probably rent the lens and figure out how/when I would use it.

claudermilk wrote:

Of your proposed additions, I'd almost say grab the extension tubes as a quick, cheap fix for the gear acquisition bug. You can find the Kenko sets on ebay for under $100.

I'll hunt around there now...
Thanks!
E