Help me spend $2000

Justiceiro

My most gracious spouse/CFO has allowed me, before we move house to a European hell of ridiculously expensive photo gear, to run buck wild, crazy, and generally amok with around $2000.


Here's what I currently roll with:

1 20D body
1 30D body, gently used

an 18-55 kit (I know, please do not taunt me).
a 70-300 IS
a 10-22 (oh yes, it is true)
an old-school 35-135, just to keep it real
Der Fantastiche Plastik (50, 1.8)

With this two large, I must buy a copy, at last, of photoshop- which will allow me to finally do all that cool image maniplation that I currently disparage supposedly due to an ostentatious adherence to high artistic ideals and general aesthetic purity, but in reality avoid due to my miserly nature, thus remaining trapped in a torturous state of envy, bitterness, lust, and self-recrimination. Fortunately, I live in New York, and thus have a legion of therapists at my disposal.

Also Lightroom, cause the cheap ass version of rawshooter that I have can't read the 30D. Also Painter, because I have no skill in actually painting but have enormous skill in projecting a pompous and sagacious manner, which is, as all acknowledge, the key to commercial success in the arts. What one cannot provide through talent must be compensated for with ironic detachment. But I digress.


All this boils down to me having around $1100 for glass. I shall not discuss the numbers of that, let it be said only that I am a student in the laboratory of life, and I believe that qualifies me eminently for an education discount. Here lieth the crux of the matter:

What shall I get with this? a 24-70, short on range but possesive of a glorious 2.8 aperture, straight through?

or a 24-105 L? Not as sweet on the aperture side, but has that extra 55 mm of reach.

Please do not suggest something other than Canon. I would rather hang out with anabaptists than people who shoot Tamron, for god's sakes. Standards must be maintained.

Richard

If the only reason you want Lightroom is as a replacement for RawShooter, you could save yourself $300 by just getting Photoshop CS3, which includes ACR and Bridge. Some people would go even further and say save yourself $600 by just getting Lightroom and forget PS. That wouldn't work for me, but if you aren't using it now, maybe you don't need it. But don't assume that you need both...check the features list of each product carefully first and ask yourself what you really need. Then spend whatever you save on more glass.

darkdragon

Could you get a used 70-200 F/2.8L for 1100?

The 24-105 sounds great too!

Also, you are funny.

darkdragon

Richard wrote:

If the only reason you want Lightroom is as a replacement for RawShooter, you could save yourself $300 by just getting Photoshop CS3, which includes ACR and Bridge. Some people would go even further and say save yourself $600 by just getting Lightroom and forget PS. That wouldn't work for me, but if you aren't using it now, maybe you don't need it. But don't assume that you need both...check the features list of each product carefully first and ask yourself what you really need. Then spend whatever you save on more glass.

Lightroom is only about $85 with a student discount So wouldn't be saving much to drop it. I like using LR a lot better then ACR+Bridge, personally.

Tee Why

Personally, I'd use Canon's own DPP and use Photoshop element and save yourself about $900 or whatever CS3 costs, unless there are specific things in CS3 that PSE does not have and you want.

That leaves about $1900 for lenses and other stuff. Only lens I'd keep from your line up is the 10-22 or if you like the 70-300IS as well.

With $1900 or so, I'd get a 17-55mm, a 430EX, Lightroom, and a nice polarizer.

SloYerRoll

I got CS3 Web Premium for 500 USD and retails around 1500.

academicsuperstore.com

Higer learning has multiple benifits..

LiquidAir

Justiceiro wrote:

What shall I get with this? a 24-70, short on range but possesive of a glorious 2.8 aperture, straight through?

or a 24-105 L? Not as sweet on the aperture side, but has that extra 55 mm of reach.

Please do not suggest something other than Canon. I would rather hang out with anabaptists than people who shoot Tamron, for god's sakes. Standards must be maintained.

If these are the choices and the target body is a 30D, I'd lean toward the 24-70. That, however, is a rather personal judgement. I like fast lenses and far and away my most used focal length range is 35mm-105mm full frame equivalent so on a 30D, the 24-70 fits the bill perfectly.

On a side note, I personally own a 24-105 for my 5D because on a full frame body the 70mm stop at the long end drives me bats in many shooting situations. That said, I would like a fast zoom and I am considering picking up a Tamron 28-75/2.8 for those situations where neither primes nor f/4 will cut it.

dawssvt

Justiceiro wrote:

Please do not suggest something other than Canon. I would rather hang out with anabaptists than people who shoot Tamron, for god's sakes. Standards must be maintained.

This is a very wise man right here

jonh68

You can buy me a D300. PM for my address. Thanks!

System

jonh68 wrote:

You can buy me a D300. PM for my address. Thanks!

claudermilk

Just to be a PITA, I ask: why LR? Why PS? Why not poke around at the other options out there. Elements perhaps would suffice. There's lots of DAMs & RAW converters out there (the combo I use is still over $100 less expensive than LR--retail & IMHO worlds superior). The combined pricetag of $900 tells me it's worth looking around to make sure those are absolutely the right choices since they are by far the most expensive ones--and overlap function to some extent.

For lenses. I prefer the 24-70, but then I need the speed more than the reach. You can also take a look at the 70-200/4L, probably the most screaming deal in the L lineup at about $500. But that's just throwing out a couple of general ideas. Again, throwing questions back at you: what do you see as a hole in your current lineup? What to you want to do that those lenses aren't getting done? IMHO looking solely at Canon lenses eliminates a number of excellent options, but that's just MHO.

puzzledpaul

I'd suggest trying some of the Open Source (free) or cheaper equivalents / alternatives of the software where available - to
a) keep as much money available for stuff you can't get equivalents for - like camera gear and
b) To see how you get on with actually using same 'for real' ...

The vast majority of ppl (imo) use just a tiny fraction of the capabilities of this s/w ... so why pay for features you're unlikely to use ... unlike lenses (presumably)?

Re using Painter (or similar) - a truly essential piece of kit if you've got any aspirations down this avenue - and don't already have one - is a graphics tablet - unless you're very odd, you'll never go back to using a mouse for such stuff again, once you've used a tablet.

Also worth checking for older versions of p/shop etc ... I picked up an edu v5 for £30 ... (no - not on a blank cd - retail boxed, shrunk wrapping intact.)

Re Canon / Tamron ... having used a Tamron SP90 macro and just bought a 180mm version - I don't really agree

pp

Justiceiro

the reason I want to get PS and lightroom is that I really love lightroom (the interface is terribly easy to use). PS is a little bit "overkill" for me now, but once I get to germany it will cost three times as much, and I will be out of a job for a few months learning German and sponging of the wife, so I wanted to use this time to spend my days mastering the program. I have, in the past, bought what I needed as I needed it, but now am looking a little bit ahead due to cost issues. Also, I think that I can get the PS/LR package for around $350.

I'm getting the wacom tablet (been in negotiations with the spouse, and am slowly cranking up her threshold, playing mostly on the guilt associated with forcing me to abandon my homeland and become an immigrant. She counters that this is exactly what she did for me ten years ago, I counter with "Yes, but I rescued you from the third world." This would seem like a bad argument to make, but I can always use the black eye she gives me immediately thereafter to guilt her into a wacom tablet. Crazy like a fox man!)

Thanks for all the input, at the moment I am leaning towards the 24-70. Adorama has one used for $1100.

LKN Dave

Justiceiro wrote:

the reason I want to get PS and lightroom is that I really love lightroom (the interface is terribly easy to use). PS is a little bit "overkill" for me now, but once I get to germany it will cost three times as much, and I will be out of a job for a few months learning German and sponging of the wife, so I wanted to use this time to spend my days mastering the program. I have, in the past, bought what I needed as I needed it, but now am looking a little bit ahead due to cost issues. Also, I think that I can get the PS/LR package for around $350.

I'm getting the wacom tablet (been in negotiations with the spouse, and am slowly cranking up her threshold, playing mostly on the guilt associated with forcing me to abandon my homeland and become an immigrant. She counters that this is exactly what she did for me ten years ago, I counter with "Yes, but I rescued you from the third world." This would seem like a bad argument to make, but I can always use the black eye she gives me immediately thereafter to guilt her into a wacom tablet. Crazy like a fox man!)

Thanks for all the input, at the moment I am leaning towards the 24-70. Adorama has one used for $1100.

Love the third world arguement, surprised she didn't kick you out of the house. Good luck with the wiacom.

Justiceiro

claudermilk wrote:

what do you see as a hole in your current lineup? What to you want to do that those lenses aren't getting done? IMHO looking solely at Canon lenses eliminates a number of excellent options, but that's just MHO.

I'm not serious about looking at only Canon. However, I have limited money to throw down, and you know a Canon L is quality.

the hole in my lineup at the moment is a good quality portrait lens. The 10-22 covers the wide real well, the 70-300 isn't L glass, but it does the job. The 35-135 is nice too (hell, I bought it for $90). Right now between 22-35mm I have nothing good.

The lens that spends the most time on my camera is the 35-135. The 10-22 is simply too wide and distorts too much (although it is my 2nd most used lens). The 70-300 is really for when I know I will need telephoto work- it is also unwieldy. So my cheapest lens is my most used.

I need to concentrate on that range around 50mm, but with some flexibility.

i_worship_the_King

what size wacom you going for... I've got a 4x5 on loan... but I'm thinking the 6x8 would be a better fit. Right now my hand shake shows up a little too much for my liking...

Little T

If you are lookin for a good portrait quality lens the 50mm or 85m for sure.

With my xti i highly enjoy using my friends 85mm L for when i do portraits turns out some really nice pictures. I just wish i had the $1100 or $1200 or whatever it is running these days.

claudermilk

OK, I understand the logic now & at those prices (damn!) might as well get them.

I can only recommend the 24-70, that's my workhorse lens. It's a permanent part of my kit. For wide angle, if the 10-22 is too wide, look at the 12-24. I had the same feeling with the 10-22, but am comfortable with the 12-24. It's also $100-150 less expensive (not "cheaper" however--it's got L-like build). Oh, $1100 is about full price on the 24-70, you should be able to find used ones for around $900-950.

For the Wacom--get it! You'll wonder what took you so long once you have it. I have the smallest & it works fine, even on the 21" monitor.

Justiceiro

Yesterday, at 4:50 PM, I elbowed, clawed, and toothed my way out of B&H rolling with a brand new 70-24, and a gently used NatGeo carbon fiber tripod. I let them talk me into the 3 year protection plan (Im a sucker I guess), as the lens cost more than what I payed for my first car (7-24 Lens, $1200, 1976 Monte Carlo, $800). They are both sweet rides however.

The weather is crap today, but I am dying to get out and try this with some strong light. It is a beautiful lens just to look at.

It is a lot bigger than it looks on the website and is heavy as hell. The advantage is that I could, in a pinch, use my camera as a mace now.

Ozone

If you are not looking at speed of workflow, you might try RawTherapee raw converter. Wonderful, slightly free software for raw image conversion, and save the s/w bucks for a used lens, now that you have the 24-70L. You will love this lens, and it even has a little bit of macro ability as if the high IQ wasn't enough! Enjoy the "Third World" and send back a few pix now and then!

Scott_Quier

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and suggest you take a look at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Not "L" build, but most certainly "L" optics. This is a sweet lens and will fill that focal length hole quite nicely.

As for the debate between the 24-105 f/4 IS and the 24-70 f/2.8 - well that's one that's been going on since the two lens made it to market. They are both very good to great lenses and I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

In combination with the 10-22, the 24-105 makes a GREAT walking around lens for outdoor work! And, wait, there's more! The 24-105 also makes a great portrait lens, either indoors (studio) or outdoors.

claudermilk

You'll get used to the weight of the lens. One nice thing is it makes all the others seem so light!

Everything Scott just said about the 24-105 I frequently say about the 24-70. It really gets down to personal preference on f2.8 vs f4 + IS, the 70-105 range, and the 280g difference. It's kind of like the Canon 10-22 vs Tokina 12-24 debate--no winner or loser, just detail differences that only each of us can decide which is better.

Two big differences between the lens & the car is the lens will retain it's value, and it will outlast the car!

Scott_Quier

claudermilk wrote:

Everything Scott just said about the 24-105 I frequently say about the 24-70. It really gets down to personal preference on f2.8 vs f4 + IS, the 70-105 range, and the 280g difference.

Yes, but when you select the 24-70 over the 24-105 ---> BIG MISTAKE

Oooops, did I just say that out loud?

Seriously, indoors the 24-70 with it's f/2.8 can have a significant advantage over the f/4 of the 24-105 as IS does not stop the motion of your subject but faster glass allows faster shutter speeds (all else being equal). The one stop difference equates to a doubling of the shutter speed and it's the shutter speed that has any chance of stopping subject motion. And the 17-55 is the best of both worlds if you can live with shortening of the long end. Now, if only Canon would make a 24-70 f/2.8L IS - life would be so much sweeter.

claudermilk

You just outlined the exact reason why the 24-70 is the correct choice for me. For my needs f2.8 > f4+IS (viewing my site will quickly make it obvious why). Isn't it nice to have options?

Scott_Quier

claudermilk wrote:

You just outlined the exact reason why the 24-70 is the correct choice for me. For my needs f2.8 > f4+IS (viewing my site will quickly make it obvious why). Isn't it nice to have options?

After viewing your site, it's obvious why the f/2.8 is desired - you're all about low-light photography.