More money, more lenses?

Duckys54

Well this Friday was my birthday and for it my parents said they were going to get me the Rebel XTi. I originally was going to buy it but now that they said they were I have some extra money to use. Originally the plan was to get the Xti body, a Tamron 28-75 2.8, 50 1.8, and a 2GB ext III CF card.

With the extra money I am now for sure going to upgrade to the 50 1.4, but what do you think I should use the extra money on? I will be doing a lot of low light close up shooting (bands at music venues) so maybe a wide, fast, prime? Or should I get a speedlite (but which)? Maybe upgrade the size/speed of my memory card?

Also, I told my parents it wasn't necessary to buy the XTi kit, but should I just get the lenses it comes with anyways so I have them to use even if they aren't necessarily the greatest?

Tango

low light? i would opt for a speedlight & diffuser....

jonh68

Personally, I wouldn't upgrade from the 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4 unless you really need that low of f stop. I don't think the little extra speed you get is worth the bigger price, but I have not used a 1.4 so take that with a grain of salt.I would use the extra money for more glass , maybe a 85 1.8 , and light and learn how to bounce light. I would think a fast wide angle would be a better investment than putting more money in the 50 1.4. The wide angle distortions can give you some creative choices for band venues along with the colorful lights at those venues.

Getting the kit lens is up to you, but I like having a lens I can take to places that I don't mind if I lose or damage the lens. You will get to the point in which your lenses become more expensive than the body. I like to kayak and I have two lenses I take. I would rather lose those and the body than lose one of my better lenses.

swintonphoto

jonh68 wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't upgrade from the 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4 unless you really need that low of f stop.

I agree. f/1.4 is a really really really narrow depth of field to work with. I think you would be satisfied with the 1.8. But, again, just my opinion as well. I would use the extra money on adding a telephoto lens to your gear.

Tommyboy

Canon makes a really nice 17-55 f/2.8--wide, fast, sweet.

I would get a speedlight, but you might be using available light for shooting performers/performances.

ccpickre

Well, I tend to disagree with the opinion about the f1.4. A: Because being able to shoot at faster shutters and lower ISO offsets the probem with the smaller DoF. and B: Because I have that lens and I've used it for concerts

I also know people who have the f1.8, if you're going to be shooting concerts, the f1.8 is a horrible choice, because it is made of plastic. A friend of mine bought one and it got broke in less than 2 weeks (shooting a performance in a bar in fact). The glass itself is nice, it's just that it's not very solid lens body.

Anything wider than an f2.8 will be a good choice with he XTi. I shot a few concerts with it, and it's pretty decent. As long as there is ample light.

I also disagree on getting a flash just for concert/band photography because flash will really take away from the ambiance and most venues/bands will kick you out for it. Others will just tell you to stop. When I photographed Hanson a few months ago at a local bar, the security guys would shine a flashlight at any camera where the flash was being set to go off, to mess up the photos. But they didn't mess with me at all. In fact they laughed because I was the only OBVIOUS photographer not using a point and shoot, but wasn't using flash.

I used a Tamron f2.8 17-50, Canon 100 f2.8 Macro, and the 70-200 f2.8 for most of my stuff (and a 300 f2.8 on occasion) mostly now I definitely rely on my 135 and 50 f1.4. But only because I have a particular style. I recommend trying some lenses out before you buy them to see what works for you.

Although I do agree with a fast wide angle. Maybe in the 20-30 range. You'll have to save up for those longer ones, but the 135 or the 70-200 would be sufficient, because typically if you're a hired photog, or press like me, they give you some freedom. Depending on the venue (at least venues I've shot in so far) I think the 85 would be useless, and the 70-200 would give you more freedom (I rarely use the 70-100mm range with my 70-200, but it's nice to have it if you need it).

I also think investing in the Canon lenses would be a better choice. My Tamron has seen a lot of use, and it's starting to show. Where as my canon lenses have held up much better.

As for the cards. I wouldn't recommend a 2 gig. If you shoot RAW, you will have to shoot with extreme prejudice, as well as spend too much time self editing. I have 2 bodies (an XTi and a 40D) and I have a 4 gig I use with the wide stuff, and a 2 I use with the longer lenses. If I had another 4 gig, I would use them both. If you shoot like me (which typically ends up being slow shutter speeds at low ISO) then you don't need the most FASTEST card. My 4 GIG Kingston 45x is MORE than sufficient, and I've used that for sports in daylight at very fast shutters. I would go for a 4 gig Lexar or SD, and wouldn't pick anything else. Those are the only two companies I would pick. I have a card from SD Lexar and Kingston, and the Kingston is the only one to give me trouble so far. Also, I shoot JPEG. A 4 gig will allow you to shoot until the sun comes up in JPEG with an XTi, especially if you have the f1.4 and are using the lower ISO.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I've shot lots of concerts (O.A.R., MXPX, Al Green, Spoon, Hanson, Umphree's Macgee, plus a lot of local bands and DJs that can't afford he nice venues or nice light setups). It is my beat in our school paper.

Here is my most recent shoot of a local dance and DJs. (I used my 135 pretty much all night long, and my 50 F1.4 for 75% of the night. My 17-50 I rarely used, and my 70-200 I only used from the balcony for about 10 minutes. I was there for 5 hours. You may see a lot of the "same" shot just a few seconds later. That's because I was doing some time lapse stuff with the dancers, and have a particular style in mind for a slideshow I'm working on. Once it's finished I will post it)
http://mnemosyne.smugmug.com/gallery/4194104#245082822

As well as my concert gallery (minus OAR cause it was my first concert shot for the paper and I didn't shoot as much as I should, and Hanson cause I haven't editted them yet)
http://mnemosyne.smugmug.com/Along%20the%20way/375657

Lastly, in regards to kits? I would 100% say no. They are worthless indoors, especially at concerts. The lower aperture will really hurt you, especially since they are sliding and get smaller as you zoom in. No shutter speed or ISO manipulation will account or the fact that many kit lenses rob you of 2 to 3 stops of light.

Duckys54

About the last comment on the kit lenses I wouldn't be using them for shooting concerts but for just general purposes hence why it might not be bad to have them. And for the shows I'd shoot they wouldn't be super big huge shows with stickler bodyguards; they are more local homegrown places where it's by teens from around the area where flash photography really isn't a concern. Plus I wokr at the one I'd mainly shoot at.

ccpickre

Well, if you just want a kit for just in case then I say go for it. But you may find the sliding aperture is trouble indoors in places that look well lit but really aren't. But I come from a journalism background, so I think differently. In fact my dad and I get into arguments about our photos and why I shot that way and not this way, and it's because he has a studio background and I do not I just think differently. I'm just against the kits because the fixed 2.8's give you much more freedom.

If you want to get a flash then go for it. The flash has saved me in a lot of situations. If you plan on shooting the events for a scrapbook or of friends then it will help. But for performances, they don't add to the photo. I think I shot like 10 shots (out 760) with my flash, and then put it away cause it just wasn't helping IMO.

SavedByZero

Flash with off camera shoe and cable for better indoor stage shooting.

jdryan3

Duckys54 wrote:

With the extra money I am now for sure going to upgrade to the 50 1.4, but what do you think I should use the extra money on? I will be doing a lot of low light close up shooting (bands at music venues) so maybe a wide, fast, prime? Or should I get a speedlite (but which)? Maybe upgrade the size/speed of my memory card?

Also, I told my parents it wasn't necessary to buy the XTi kit, but should I just get the lenses it comes with anyways so I have them to use even if they aren't necessarily the greatest?

You don't say how much extra "extra money" there is. I like the 35 f/1.4 L as a wide, low light lens. But it wouldn't be all that wide on an XTi since the effective focal length would be 56mm. So I would go with Tommyboy's 17-55 f/2.8 suggestion.

RE the kit lens: Why? Save the $80 or so, especially if you get the 17-55 f/2.8 and put it towards something else. The Tamron you are looking at goes down to 28, so another option is the 10-22 to get the WA you mention, but it isn't terribly fast. Again depending upon the $$ you have, I think you are going to be able to get fast (fairly fast) lenses or be able to cover a wider spectum. But probably not both.:cry

rpcrowe

A comment about the 50mm f/1.8 Mark-II Lens
This is a "cult" lens. Primarily due to its low price and how much better the imagery is than the "kit" lens used by many folks who purchase the Mark-II.

I swim against the current in my feelings about that lens. I personally am in favor of a used 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens over the Mark-II which replaced it.

1. Mark-I has a much better build and can take a bit rougher usage than the "plastic fantastic". Although most photographers do not intend to beat their lenses up; the Mark-II is a pretty fragile lens.

2. Mark-I has a focus scale which is very handy to use in lower light levels when the AF is not working great. You can pre-focus your lens at an expected distance and you will not have much of a job tweaking the focus. Additionally, having a focusing scale will enable you to focus on the hyper-focal distance to get maximum depth of field.

The used Mark-I lenses are a bit more expensive than the Mark-II which replaced it (this should tell you what many photographers think of these two lenses) but, the approximate $125 price tag is quite a bit less than the price of a 50mm f/1.4 lens.

ccpickre

The 10-22 is nice, but if you ever plan on going pro or more than amateur, it is wasted on a 5D or full frame. I tend to steer clear of EF-S lenses, even though I only own 2 cropped bodies right now. As soon as my dad upgrades to the 5D II, I'm stealing his 5D

Scott_Quier

I've had the 50 f/1.8 II and currently have the 50 f/1.4.

Using the 1.8 in dark surrounds is problematic - it have problems acquiring focus lock. The 1.4 is quite a bit better - though still no dream.

If you can afford the 1.4 and want 50mm, the 1.4 is the better choice.

Another decent choice is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - just something to think about.

claudermilk

I will add in my 0.02 having shot many, many dance performances over the past few years. First, forget the flash, #1 you will lose the ambiance of the lighting, and #2 you will tick off both the performers and audience. Flash is just a no-no here.

Next, while the 50/1.8 is a nice lens, I don't use my Mk I very often as the slow AF motor causes delays & lots of hunting. I have used the 1.4 and 1.2 as well, and would personally prefer the 1.4 overall; that USM motor makes a huge difference. Though rpcrowe outlined a workaround for the shortcomings of the 1.8. Forget the 10-22 for low light, it's way too slow, and you'll need more reach than that unless you're on the stage (FYI, I typically only use the 50mm when shooting during tech & I am allowed on stage).

For my shooting, I typically use either the 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 as those focal lengths fit my typical venues well. The f.8 is about as slow as you want for the lighting you'll get.

As for cards, I find the 2GB SanDisk Ultra IIs work just fine. I personally won't touch Lexar with a ten foot pole considering the issues they've had. Check Rob Galbratih's performance database & picke the price/performance level you're most comfortable with (note the larger cards are slower).

Duckys54

Two options:
Plan A:
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 or Tam/Sig 55-200 f4-5.6
Canon f1.4
total: ~$880
Pros-Not too expensive, leaves plenty of money for a good card or two. Also they are all EF lenses and could be used in the future on a different body.
Cons - Slow reach

Plan B:
Canon 17-50 f2.8 IS
total: ~$930
Pros - the IS will give me some extra speed for those low light situations
Cons- More expensive, less reach, EF-S

From the way it looks I'm going to go with plan A, but Are the tele's I choose good or what would you recomend?

jonh68

Plan B:
Canon 17-50 f2.8 IS
total: ~$930
Pros - the IS will give me some extra speed for those low light situations
Cons- More expensive, less reach, EF-S

I think plan A is better. IS doesn't give extra speed, just able to handhold at lower speeds better if the object is stationary. IS will not help with a moving object any more than a non IS at 1/15 of a second or so. It just depends on what you want to get.

If you are getting band members and they are stationary for the most part, IS would help. If you are getting around 1/50 and want to get people dancing, it may help in that situation as well, but it still will not slow down motion. It will help convey the sense of motion of the dancer as motion blur will not be the camera for the most part provided you use good technique.

ccpickre

The only limiting factor with Plan a is the Apertures. But there in lies the problem. Performance/Concert photography is expensive. I've been lucky that I have a financial backer (read: dad) who supprts my addiction.

If you could find something like a 50-150 that would be great. Not that I know of one. I've just found that a wide aperture is crucial for concerts.

jonh68

ccpickre wrote:

If you could find something like a 50-150 that would be great. Not that I know of one. I've just found that a wide aperture is crucial for concerts.

Sigma has a 50-150 2.8

swintonphoto

I would do plan A. Gives you a nice range, and offers you a really bright option.

ccpickre

The problem is there are just TOO many options

dablan

I'd say rather than getting "ok" Tamron lenses, get one really good "L" series lens from Canon.

For general purpose, get a 24-105 f/4 L IS. You won't go wrong, and can cover most situations, indoors and out. Solid construction, and image stabilization.

claudermilk

It's tough. Like ccpickre said, low light photography is expensive. Unfortunately the 24-105, while a nice general walkaround, won't cut it for concerts. That's where the 24-70/2.8L comes in.

The question is with option A, what tasks will each of the lenses cover? Don't be buying lenses in a focal range just to cover that range--you may not really need it. I'll use myself as an example again. Lens #1 was the 50/1.8--it got me the speed and optical quality I needed for my small venue events & the price was what I could afford at the time. Lens #2 was the 24-70--covered the same small venues, but more flexibility & better overall; it also acts as my main portraiture and walk-around. Lens #3--Tokina 12-24, this was added for travel to shoot the grand vista landscapes I was anticipating. It's now also my documentary lens for my house renovation projects. Finally lens #4--70-200/2.8, added my own copy to the bag for larger show venues; I had been renting & borrowing these for over a year. The main thing here is I have a specific job in mind for each lens; I didn't just decide "gee, I want to cover 12mm through 200mm seamlessly just to cover all my bases for whatever."

Another point with the above example, it doesn't hurt to acquire lenses one at a time over time. Decide what your most immediate needs are and get the best lens you can to fill that need. Then as a hole in your lineup becomes apparent, you can concentrate on determining what the best option for filling that hole is for you. Also, don't worry about "future bodies," worry about where you are now. If the $1k is a stretch to fill your glass needs, you're not getting a FF body any time soon.

Duckys54

That's a good point with the not needing the extra lenses. As much as I'd like to get an L lens, I could only barely get one and the one I'd like would bet the the 16-35. Maybe the 17-55 ef-s though, but i here so much that it's a dust sucker. I think I'll stick with option but no get the tele lens and use the extra money for some accessroies such as a nice carrying case for eveything, bigger/better memroy cards, etc.

ccpickre

Claudermilk is right. Patience is the key. I was lucky and got a lot this past Christmas/Birthday, but for the year before that I couldn't do a lot of things. Now, I'm on my way. Only things left now are maybe a 20mm and a 300 or 400mm.

jdryan3

ccpickre wrote:

In fact my dad and I get into arguments about our photos and why I shot that way and not this way, and it's because he has a studio background and I do not I just think differently.

ccpickre wrote:

I've been lucky that I have a financial backer (read: dad) who supprts my addiction.

ccpickre wrote:

I was lucky and got a lot this past Christmas/Birthday, but for the year before that I couldn't do a lot of things. Now, I'm on my way. Only things left now are maybe a 20mm and a 300 or 400mm.

So you fight with your dad, he supports your lens jones, even bestows you with fine gifts ...

ccpickre wrote:

As soon as my dad upgrades to the 5D II, I'm stealing his 5D

...yet your gonna steal his 5D ???


And he seems like such a nice guy!

claudermilk

ccpickre wrote:

Claudermilk is right. Patience is the key. I was lucky and got a lot this past Christmas/Birthday, but for the year before that I couldn't do a lot of things. Now, I'm on my way. Only things left now are maybe a 20mm and a 300 or 400mm.

One thing I didn't mention is that it's taken me 3 1/2 years to build my lens kit--and I'm not done yet (want a super telephoto & a good macro now). Yup, patience can be hard, but it worth it in the end.

Duckys54

Well, I've decided to go with just the 17-55mm f/2.8 Tamron lens and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for now. That way I'll decide if I really need those extra focal lengths quite yet or I can wait.

The next question is I am not the greatest handling things so is there any carrying case you would recommend? I'm looking for it to be relatively portable and can somewhat handle the elements.

Also, IIRC Canon made a new battery/grip combo and I was wondering if it worked with the XTi.

ziggy53

Duckys54 wrote:

Well, I've decided to go with just the 17-55mm f/2.8 Tamron lens and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for now. That way I'll decide if I really need those extra focal lengths quite yet or I can wait. ...

Sounds to me like an excellent choice for concerts and such, as well as general photography. The Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 is also a good choice for 1 and 2 head shot portraiture on a crop 1.6x body.

Duckys54 wrote:

... The next question is I am not the greatest handling things so is there any carrying case you would recommend? I'm looking for it to be relatively portable and can somewhat handle the elements.

Also, IIRC Canon made a new battery/grip combo and I was wondering if it worked with the XTi.

I'll let someone else handle that question but do remember that an XTi is a bit bigger with the vertical grip so take that into consideration. I have the XT and, with the grip, it takes a different bag configuration than without. There are times when the grip is absolutely worth it, so I use two identical bags, with a different layout for each configuration.

The 40D just messed me up completely (but in a good way. )

ccpickre

jdryan3 wrote:

So you fight with your dad, he supports your lens jones, even bestows you with fine gifts ...


...yet your gonna steal his 5D ???


And he seems like such a nice guy!

You tell me. He's on this forum, as Pathfinder

And yes he is. I couldn't thank him enough for the support he's given me. I'm what you may call a "diffcult" child It took me a long time to find something I truly wanted to do, but I did, something that I can't get enough of, and everytime I learn something new, It makes me wish there were 48 hours in a day so I could shoot more. And despite how frustrating I can be, my dad was willing to put up with my unorthodox personality, and it paid off I think. 1 year ago when he bought me my first SLR, I would never have figured I would end up photographing the Dalai Llama by personal invite. Yet I have. It's fun, and awesome.

PS> We don't get into fistfights or yelling matches, it's just he is more meticulous and calculating in his photos, while I try to capture things as they happen. We're just different.

PSS> He hasn't agreed to the 5D thing, so I'll have to come home one night and take it while he's sleeping

The next question is I am not the greatest handling things so is there any carrying case you would recommend? I'm looking for it to be relatively portable and can somewhat handle the elements.

I liked the Lowepro slingback until I got more stuff than it could hold.

IIRC Canon made a new battery/grip combo and I was wondering if it worked with the XTi.

They do make battery grips for the XTi, but considering the size and weight of the XTi, you probably wouldn't need it.

I have a battery grip for my 40D, but since I use my XTi as a wide/secondary, a battery grip is unnessacary for me. So I probably can't answer, but I don't think you;ll need it. The size and the weight actually might negate the ease of use of the XTi. I say it's your call. Try one out, and see what you think.

The 40D just messed me up completely (but in a good way.

I know how you feel.

Duckys54

My main reason for wanting the grip is for the extended battery life and when I went to best buy to give the XTi a test go it felt kind of small.

Oh, and thank you everyone for your help =D

jdryan3

claudermilk wrote:

One thing I didn't mention is that it's taken me 3 1/2 years to build my lens kit--and I'm not done yet (want a super telephoto & a good macro now). Yup, patience can be hard, but it worth it in the end.

I agree with Chris. Mine goes back about 9, in earnest about 5 years - just before I also went digital. Picked some losers, picked some great glass I just don't use, and still enjoy getting a new one.

Like the 35L I recently got. I have always liked that slightly WA look you get but wasn't sure if I $1100 liked it. So I used my 24-70 for some specific projects only at that focal length before I made my decision.

And I know I need something longer than my current 70-200. Am I $1000 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6 needy. Or am I 300 f/3.8 + 40D, might as well get the 400DO needy?? Obsessive may be a better word than "needy".

Remember: The ONLY difference between men and boys is the size & cost of their toys.