new camera gear

Elaine

I'm working on putting together a new kit for myself and wondered if anyone would disagree with this list, or have other suggestions. This would be just to start out with and other lenses would come later. I like to shoot people as well as every-day stuff and some outdoorsy scenes.

Canon 40D
extra battery
50mm f/1.4 with UV filter
580 EXII speedlite

I'm trying to keep the initial investment to $2k or less, and this list lands right there, from B&H.

FYI...I'm moving over from my entry-level dslr Minolta 5D in order to gain better ISO performance, faster and more accurate auto-focus, a few more mega-pixels, the benefits a larger brand has to offer with regards to availability and resale, and to put my $ towards a system that I can really grow into (rather than putting any more money, say for a flash, into a system that feels limiting).

If anyone has any suggestions, ideas or thoughts on this, I'd like to hear them. Thanks!

ziggy53

Elaine,

That's a fairly decent lineup and should provide an excellent base for growth. You might consider a short zoom as your first lens, unless you plan on that purchase quickly after.

Joves

No it doesnt look too bad to me. But why only a 50mm and, not a lense with some range. I love my 50mm but, I only have it for certain things.

pathfinder

I like the 50mm f1.4, but if I could have ONLY one lens for my 40D, I would swap the 50f1.4 for a Tamron 28-75f2.8 Di or the Tamron 17-50f2.8 for a little more versatility.

Not a better lens necessarily, but a better one for the way I choose to shoot.....

Since you will have a flashm f1.4 becomes relatively less important, and the zoom becomes more of an advantage.

If I could choose, I would consider the 17-55 f2.8 IS from Canon, but that is considerably more $.

Elaine

Thanks for the feedback. Some interesting points regarding a zoom have been brought up, which gives me more to think about. My thinking thus far has been to get a lens that I know I would want in my bag anyway, and to not spend more than $300 on it, in order to keep my initial costs down. (I hopefully will add another lens in about 6 months or so.) I figured I would take some time getting to know my camera and flash system well, with a simple lens.

I currently have the KM 28-75 f/2.8 which is probably the same lens as the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It's on my camera 90% of the time. At this point, I plan to keep it, so I would have this range available on a back-up body. On the other hand, if I sold it, I could get one for the Canon body instead. I need to sell a couple other lenses off first and see if that helps me out.

Originally, I had planned to get the 50 f/1.4 and the 24-105 f/4, but even though the L is a "good" price right now at B&H, it still adds over 1k to my start-up costs...ouch! The 17-55 IS is another one on my list, but it's also not cheap. I don't really want to buy a cheap zoom and try to resell it and upgrade later...I've already become too picky!

Hmmm...decisions, decisions!

groovyone

If you are moving from the Minolta, take a look at the Sony A700, Sony 50mm f1.4 (or 1.7), spare battery and the HVL-F56AM flash. I absolutely love my A700 after jumping from the Sony A100 (very similar to your Minolta 5D). I also just picked up the Sony 50 f1.4 and am amazed at how sharp it is wide open. Also, any of your current Minolta lenses will work on the Sony.

It would be cutting it close to $2K, but should still be under. Circuit City also had some killer deals on all DSLRs and DSLR lenses this past week, but I am not sure if they are still on sale.

B&H came out to be $2089 for the whole setup.

I also agree with Pathfinder on the lenses though. I had a 50 f1.7 for a while, but it was rarely on the camera in favor for a Minolta 28-75 f2.8 which is similar to the Tamron.

JimW

Elaine,

Some famous photographer (I forget who) said the best new fast lens to get is a good tripod. I only have two lenses, but the best purchase I ever made was to upgrade to good tripod legs and an excellent ball head. I have Gitzo legs, but there are lots of good ones. Last year, I got an RRS BH-55 ball head. You may not need that model, but the RRS ballheads work so well, compared to cheap models, that you'll think you died and went to heaven.

Beg, borrow or steal a good tripod and ball head. Unless you already have one, in which case, nevermind. :D

Jim

Scott_Quier

This may be an oxymoron:

My thinking thus far has been to get a lens that I know I would want in my bag anyway, and to not spend more than $300 on it

I'm not sure you can get a really decent lens for $300.

As many significant DGrin personalities have commented, it's usually better to "buy it once, buy it right", even if that means delaying a little bit. It's saved money when done that way. I wish I had read that before I made a couple of mistakes.

I really, really think you would be much more pleased if you went with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, even if it meant delaying the purchase a month or two (might make a really, really nice Christmas gift ) over the 50 f/1.4. I have both. Can you guess which one I don't use very often?

I also have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and have had it for a (small) number of years. I will probably buy and sell many lenses, but I don't think I will be selling this lens in the next 10 years or so - it's just too versatile.

Elaine

Scott_Quier wrote:

I'm not sure you can get a really decent lens for $300.

I completely agree...that's why I was going for the 50 f/1.4 because as far as I know, that's about the only one that fits into that category!

Scott_Quier wrote:

As many significant DGrin personalities have commented, it's usually better to "buy it once, buy it right", even if that means delaying a little bit. It's saved money when done that way. I wish I had read that before I made a couple of mistakes.

We agree again! Since the 50mm was on my short list, and it was the least expensive lens on my short list, I figured it would be one that I would buy once and keep. I would not buy the 50 1.8 (currently have a 50 1.7 that doesn't get used much because of its softness wide-open and non-round specular highlights), but the 50 1.4 sounds to be much higher quality. Am I wrong? As I mentioned, I'm not really interested in buying a cheap zoom just to get me started...I feel I'm a step beyond just getting started. I definitely want to buy once and buy right! I wish I had done that about 2 1/2 years ago and I wouldn't be in this boat!

Scott_Quier wrote:

I really, really think you would be much more pleased if you went with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, even if it meant delaying the purchase a month or two (might make a really, really nice Christmas gift ) over the 50 f/1.4. I have both. Can you guess which one I don't use very often?

I'm sure I'd be quite pleased with the 17-55 too! Although, I do wonder about distortion issues taking portraits at the wide end. Any comments about this?

Scott_Quier wrote:

I also have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and have had it for a (small) number of years. I will probably buy and sell many lenses, but I don't think I will be selling this lens in the next 10 years or so - it's just too versatile.

I've got the KM version of this lens...it's my most used lens, but I wish it was a bit wider and longer. That's why I was thinking of the 24-105L. Still not sure if the range or the 2.8 would serve me better.

I really appreciate your input, Scott! You've raised some of the same issues I've been battling in my mind. I'm trying to take advantage of some decent prices right now and not give my husband a coronary at the total bill! As I need to learn to use a flash, that almost feels like a higher priority than a zoom lens at the moment. Of course, 10 minutes after I got the camera, I'm sure I'd wish I had a good zoom!

Elaine

JimW wrote:

Elaine,

Some famous photographer (I forget who) said the best new fast lens to get is a good tripod. I only have two lenses, but the best purchase I ever made was to upgrade to good tripod legs and an excellent ball head. I have Gitzo legs, but there are lots of good ones. Last year, I got an RRS BH-55 ball head. You may not need that model, but the RRS ballheads work so well, compared to cheap models, that you'll think you died and went to heaven.

Beg, borrow or steal a good tripod and ball head. Unless you already have one, in which case, nevermind. :D

Jim

Thanks for the tip, Jim! I do not have a good tripod and I appreciate the recommendations!

Elaine

groovyone wrote:

If you are moving from the Minolta, take a look at the Sony A700, Sony 50mm f1.4 (or 1.7), spare battery and the HVL-F56AM flash. I absolutely love my A700 after jumping from the Sony A100 (very similar to your Minolta 5D). I also just picked up the Sony 50 f1.4 and am amazed at how sharp it is wide open. Also, any of your current Minolta lenses will work on the Sony.

It would be cutting it close to $2K, but should still be under. Circuit City also had some killer deals on all DSLRs and DSLR lenses this past week, but I am not sure if they are still on sale.

B&H came out to be $2089 for the whole setup.

I also agree with Pathfinder on the lenses though. I had a 50 f1.7 for a while, but it was rarely on the camera in favor for a Minolta 28-75 f2.8 which is similar to the Tamron.

I'm glad to hear the A700 is a nice improvement over the A100. I also have a 50 1.7 that doesn't get much use (due to softness and non-round bokeh), and I have the KM 28-75 which is what I use most. I guess I've just decided if I'm going to put 2-3k into my equipment, I'd rather it be into another system altogether, one that I know will be around. Maybe I'm still a bit jumpy about the whole Sony/Minolta deal. Honestly, I haven't given the A-700 much of a look. Maybe I should, or maybe that will just confuse me more!

Scott_Quier

I'm sure I'd be quite pleased with the 17-55 too! Although, I do wonder about distortion issues taking portraits at the wide end. Any comments about this?

There is some - as one would expect at 17mm. The only time I would even consider that is if I were taking a shot of a huge group of people, and I couldn't backup further, and I couldn't move the whole job elsewhere....

Zoom it to a more reasonable focal length and everyone's a happy camper.

salazar

A thought. Do you really need the 580 EXII speedlite right away? The 40D does have a built in flash, used with a diffuser it might do for a bit, freeing up some bucks to go toward that zoom you think you may want.

Elaine

salazar wrote:

A thought. Do you really need the 580 EXII speedlite right away? The 40D does have a built in flash, used with a diffuser it might do for a bit, freeing up some bucks to go toward that zoom you think you may want.

Well...one of my main reasons for upgrading is to get a system with an external flash and not put money into an HSS flash for my current system that I don't intend to stick with. Since learning to use flash is quite important to me right now, then a flash stays on the list. Of course, I could look into a Sigma flash, which might save me a few $. Anyway, thanks for the idea, though!

Elaine

Scott_Quier wrote:

There is some - as one would expect at 17mm. The only time I would even consider that is if I were taking a shot of a huge group of people, and I couldn't backup further, and I couldn't move the whole job elsewhere....

Zoom it to a more reasonable focal length and everyone's a happy camper.

Thanks for the input. I've read that there is significant vignetting at 2.8. Do you find this to be troublesome at all? Is it nice and sharp at 2.8? If so, I'm beginning to be convinced this should be my first lens. My KM 28-75 2.8 is not as sharp as I'd like when wide open...I tend to keep it between 4.5 and 6.3 for portraits. I'd love to have a sharp, fast zoom...worried about the 55mm feeling short though.

groovyone

Elaine wrote:

I've got the KM version of this lens...it's my most used lens, but I wish it was a bit wider and longer. That's why I was thinking of the 24-105L. Still not sure if the range or the 2.8 would serve me better.

The range was my only issue with the 28-75 f2.8, and I now have that and the Zeiss 16-80 f3.5-4.5. Love the Zeiss, but it is slower, so I do still use the 28-75 a bit, but no where near as much. I agree on the 50 f1.7, but the 1.4 is a whole different beast. The bokeh is amazing. Yeah, the A700 will make things more confusing, but it is worth a look, especially if you are not already invested in Canon or Nikon. I was getting a little pananoid about Sony after the long wait for a second DSLR, but they eased my concerns with this one. I can't wait to see the A900.

As for the flash, I know how you feel. I am sure the Minolta 5D flash compares to the A100, which is BAD! I bought the 56AM because I could not get the fast lens I wanted at the time, and have really enjoyed learning to use it effectively. It is definitely a useful tool, although I do still prefer using natural light. I use a Fong WhaleTail with mine and am getting better with it all the time.

Scott_Quier

Elaine wrote:

Thanks for the input. I've read that there is significant vignetting at 2.8. Do you find this to be troublesome at all? Is it nice and sharp at 2.8? If so, I'm beginning to be convinced this should be my first lens. My KM 28-75 2.8 is not as sharp as I'd like when wide open...I tend to keep it between 4.5 and 6.3 for portraits. I'd love to have a sharp, fast zoom...worried about the 55mm feeling short though.

I've never noticed any vignetting, even wide open. And, I shoot wide open a lot with this lens - receptions tend to be dark places

Sharp - not bad at all. When I get on my processing computer, I'll post a couple of examples.

55 being short - yep, sometimes. You can't have everything. The perfect lens would be something like a 20 - 400 f/1.8L IS USM that weighed something less than a 1/2 kilo. Oh, and it needs to command a price something less than $750. Oh, and it needs to be sharp, like the EF 85 f/1.8 is sharp. All in good time....

Elaine

Well, I'm still leaning Canon, and now I'm considering the 17-55 2.8 IS along with the 85 1.8. My thinking is that the 17-55 would be handy indoors (especially during the winter months) and nice for group shots. The quick focusing would be extremely helpful. The 85 would be a relatively economical "portrait" lens that would provide nice bokeh and speed and a little more reach. Eventually I could pick up a 70-200. I think I've "decided" about 1/2 a dozen times now!

Scott_Quier

Elaine wrote:

Well, I'm still leaning Canon, and now I'm considering the 17-55 2.8 IS along with the 85 1.8. My thinking is that the 17-55 would be handy indoors (especially during the winter months) and nice for group shots. The quick focusing would be extremely helpful. The 85 would be a relatively economical "portrait" lens that would provide nice bokeh and speed and a little more reach. Eventually I could pick up a 70-200. I think I've "decided" about 1/2 a dozen times now!

If you look at my profile (for a partial list of my equipment) you will find that you and I are thinking much alike on this.

Elaine

I got the go-for-it from my husband this morning...so I pushed the button at B&H!!! I got the Canon 40D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS with B+W UV filter, 85 f/1.8 with B+W UV filter, extra Canon battery, 580 EX II Speedlite and a lens cleaning pen! Needless to say, Christmas will come early here (and Valentine's Day and Mother's Day and Anniversary and Birthday and Christmas again...)! Thanks for helping me work through this decision process!!

jdryan3

Elaine wrote:

I got the go-for-it from my husband this morning...so I pushed the button at B&H!!! I got the Canon 40D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS with B+W UV filter, 85 f/1.8 with B+W UV filter, extra Canon battery, 580 EX II Speedlite and a lens cleaning pen! Needless to say, Christmas will come early here (and Valentine's Day and Mother's Day and Anniversary and Birthday and Christmas again...)! Thanks for helping me work through this decision process!!

But you'll be able to post FANTASTIC images of those events right here! :photo :photo :photo :photo

Scott_Quier

Elaine wrote:

I got the go-for-it from my husband this morning...so I pushed the button at B&H!!! I got the Canon 40D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS with B+W UV filter, 85 f/1.8 with B+W UV filter, extra Canon battery, 580 EX II Speedlite and a lens cleaning pen! Needless to say, Christmas will come early here (and Valentine's Day and Mother's Day and Anniversary and Birthday and Christmas again...)! Thanks for helping me work through this decision process!!

WOW - that is insanely cool! Congrats!!

nightspidy

Woo-hoo!!!
Seems like christmas is coming early for a lot of people!!! Congrats and let's see those pics!!!