Spend my money for me?

ginger_55 · January 19, 2006

I have a tax return approved..............3000.00.

I have a list of must haves like PS CS2 (legal) for 300.00

Pretty much after that, it is ??????? mucho stuff..........

And trip to Harry's???? Yeah, or Nay!

I have a Canon 20D, 400L lens, Canon Extenders, 1.4, and 2.0, 70-200L lens f4, and 17-40 lensL
a good Monopod, a dirty crumpler bag.

Those are the essentials that I have at this point. I wanted one fast lens, well I think I should want one, plus I want a Macro, or I did when the butterflys and dragonflys were around, and for abstracts. I am not excited about those, but they are on my list as I have wanted each a few times this year.

Oh, I have Sigma Super 500 flash.

I shoot birds, candids and landscapes..............where ever I am, I shoot. I do not do still lifes, set up portraits with lights, or sports for money, or dogs for money.

I would be very excited about a 500mm lens, but I am having problems as I can't afford one. And when I get right down to it. I am doing OK with the lenses I have.
All three, though maybe I would be happier with something more normal for low light and say the 1.8 or 1 1/4 50 mm, but then it would need macro. I just heard that you can't shoot butterflys and stuff with a short macro....

Then there is the trip to Harry's.

?????? I don't know how much that would be worth in the long run. I will never get out west........never. This is my one chance to meet everyone. But except for the pet birds, the ones that are closer than Carolina birds, and the raptors, well, I have most of those things here. I just haven't met anyone.

I am totally confused!

Oh, I do plan to get another smugmug site, and I know that sounds rediculous, but it is too confusing for me to have family stuff, etc, with stuff for sale. For 30.00 a yr, I thought I could move all the junk to family, take old bad stuff out, and really trim my pro site down. That is not a biggie.

But do I then want to have a couple of photos nicely framed and placed in a gallery somewhere here and try to push them???? That way. I am not, not myself, a salesperson, I am 66 yrs old, and that is not going to change. I am profoundly hard of hearing, shy of people............I just don't sell well, I need someone to do it for me.

So, I thought to clean up my site, frame some things, try to find a gallery who doesn't charge rent, and just see what happens. (I am getting a lot of pressure from internet friends that I should be selling. I have resorted to asking them why they don't buy if they think my stuff is so saleable).

And if anyone wonders why my prices are so high, they talked me into raising them.

ginger

Please spend my money....................with suggestions.....

Thusie · January 19, 2006

First go to Harry's. Absolutly a grand time me thinks.

Harryb · January 19, 2006

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12181&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

Rohirrim · January 19, 2006

Canons 100mm 2.8 Macro lens is very nice and reasonably priced.

Perhaps a good tripod and head.

USAIR · January 19, 2006

Anytime you can hang with top notch photogs is a good thing
Harry gets my vote

Fred

rutt · January 19, 2006

You could come to Bryce and Zion...

bfjr · January 19, 2006

A trip to Harry's and take me with

4labs · January 19, 2006

Don't forget to replace those shoes you lost in the mud..

DJ-S1 · January 19, 2006

I remember you commenting on problems with church shots, so I'd get a fast lens for that purpose. I'm sure Shay or one of those guys could suggest the right lens.

Andy · January 19, 2006

Sell your 17-40L
Buy 16-35 f/2.8L (added benefit of faster lens for your indoor church shots).

This will cost you net, about $600-700. Add that to the cost of pshop, and one more splurge. Then save the rest for a photographic emergency.

pathfinder · January 19, 2006

Don't listen to Harry!!

Do not buy the 84 f1.2 unless you just can't live without it. I love it, but the 85 f1.8 will work 99% of the time and costs 1/4 as much.

Buy the 85 f1.8 - it is a steal:): or the 50mm f1.4 - You need some good primes.

Or even the 24-70f2.8 L with a 500D 77mm macro adapter for you butterflies.

Seymore · January 19, 2006

Help spend your money? SURE!!!
I'll take one of these.

not greedy
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=84151&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

And you can drop me an email for my mailing addy.

Thanks!
I'll never look a gift horse in the mouth ever again! I promise!

DavidTO · January 19, 2006

Seymore, you aim too low. Think big, man!

Ginger, I would say, spend very little. Hold onto it, save it. What I would do if I were you is to spend some money on your computer. Get a large, fast drive to keep your photos on, so you don't keep running out of room, and make sure you get a second to act as a backup. Being reliant on DVD media is fine, but it's a PITA, so you end up not backing up too often, and the reliability of DVD is questionable. I would back up constantly to a second drive in addition to the DVD backups.

ginger_55 · January 19, 2006

Pathfinder, what about the 100mm macro f 2.8? Steve suggested that. It sells for $470.0.

OK, Andy has never steered me wrong when he and I kind of agreed on something, and neither have you, Path. Andy suggested the 16-35 f 2/8L. I would assume that is because he knows I like wide lenses, need something faster than the 17-40L and that would take care of that.

I already had the 100, from above on my wish list, it is a macro. I will look at what you suggested, too.

New my 17-40L sells for 670.00. I cannot say that my lens is mint. Since I have always had a protective lens on it, the lens is mint, but the "body" of the lens is going to show some wear. I wear my camera around my neck alot and that lens tends to swing, ouch, well it does. I do not have a lens cover. I do have the back cover. So how much would I ask for it? I could put it up for sale immediately, or at least when my state taxes get OKd for safety's sake. But I don't know how much to ask.

Also, if I were to then get the 100mm macro, would you all suggest I keep, or sell that 70-200f4 that everyone seems to love so much? I do use it, when my 400 is too long and my 17-40 is too short, but would the 100 make that kind of redundant? What have you all heard about that 100?? Usually I research at FM before I put something on my wish list.

I am going to get an access plate and a quick release for the tripod I have since I couldn't carry much heavier anyway. And I guess I need a remote.
So that takes care of the tri-pod situation.

Now for those who say I should save my money. If it were just me, I would. For not just the photography, I also worry about the dogs and my car. But I don't trust it to stay there if I save it. Never does. Never has. It would be safer in a resaleable lens than where my husband thought it was money. It makes him very jealous to know that I have money. I have been sitting on 170.00 for a wk, it hurts both of us. Me since I can't/won't spend it, and Bill because he is broke and thinks I am rich over here. Everyone is in a different situation.

Last year I lost out on almost 1000.00 because I was waiting to order something and Bill "needed" the money. I was going to order it, just hadn't gotten around to it.

Now, let me ask you this: how much could I get away with on a laptop that would be truly portable????

I know the resale is not like a good lens, but wracking my brains, I think the lenses are covered. The only question being whether I really need the 70-200. That I have, but remember it is handy, when I do use it. And it is in better shape than say the 17-40, I use it less for one thing, for another, I usually use two hands.

Just some questions.

Oh, why is the 16-35L so much more than the 17-40L (just the extra stops?)

ginger

ginger_55 · January 19, 2006

Seymore truly do aim too LOW!

in general, Nikon?????

Ok, I recovered...........

ginger

Harryb · January 19, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

Don't listen to Harry!!

Do not buy the 84 f1.2 unless you just can't live without it. I love it, but the 85 f1.8 will work 99% of the time and costs 1/4 as much.

Buy the 85 f1.8 - it is a steal:): or the 50mm f1.4 - You need some good primes.

Or even the 24-70f2.8 L with a 500D 77mm macro adapter for you butterflies.

When you have the $ go for the best. Every "compromise" lens I have bought I have ended up replacing for its better counter part thereby spending more $ than I would have if I had gone for the best when i had the chance.

rutt · January 19, 2006

Andy and Pathfinder are giving you good advice, but I have another suggestion.

10-22 UWA for wide angle fun
50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro for a fast midrange prime. This will also get you going with macro. You get almost the same image size with this small fast lens that on a 20D that you would on a full frame 35mm camera with that 100mm.

That's only a little over $1k, leaving you lot's of dry powder, especially if you sell your current wide zoom. What about a fast prime? An available light monster of some sort? You just have to decide what focal length you want for this.

USAIR · January 19, 2006

Ok how about this
70-200 f/2.8L $1700
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set $160 you still have about $1140 left[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I like shooting flowers and butterflies with this lens it seems to work real nice for me[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I use the tubes to get closer it's nice to stand back from bugs and shoot[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And mabe a 500D too (77mm)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Check out this link part 3 is really what I am talking about[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wish I had you problem

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Have fun[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fred[/FONT]

ginger_55 · January 19, 2006

Thanks, Air, it is not really a problem, I have much more on my own lists than I do money.

And the things I really want I can't afford.

David, I have THREE Maxtor external hard drives, and I do have another one on my tax list. I ended up really tight last fall when I needed another one and had to squeeze out the money for a 200 gb, but it is not as though I don't know about extra hard drives. Sid told me a couple of years ago. I have two running right now. I took everything off of my primary hard drive, and it is on the Maxtor.

Also, I would like to get another CF card. I am sure I could fill up as many as I have to infinity, but I would like another one. I was waiting for them to get cheaper than they are..........haven't.

I wonder if I could use that extension tube set with my 70-200 f 4, or if it would be too dark. That would be an ideal set up.

Rutt, that 16-35mm L, the one Andy mentioned, it looks darned good on the Canon site. And it focuses up close. I like that, that gives the distortion. I am not sure that that is not the best way to go on that. In fact, that was the one thing I had decided on. (to get rid of the 17-40 and get the 16-35) I gain the f stops there, too. Otherwise it would almost kill me to get rid of the 17-40, I do half of my shooting with it. Actually, if I am not shooting birds and don't need reach, I do all of my shooting with it. I used it exclusively in the aquarium and in the cemetery. It is really a cool lens for me. But I should have the part I like in the 16-35, plus gaining stops and a bit of distortion.

On the 100mm, it is not that expensive a lens. and I know that the one you are talking about isn't either, but I could not then give up the 17-40.

So far, ginger (I couldn't find those 85/84 lenses on B&H, the ones that Path and Harry were discussing. But I know they would be more than the 100) Or the one would, and I do agree with Harry, my favorite lenses now are the ones that are my best lenses for what I could afford, and I am glad I went to L lenses last year. It just feels good.)

Andy · January 19, 2006

ginger_55 wrote:

David, I have THREE Maxtor external hard drives,

Ginger, dear: don't take this the wrong way, but I'm certain you could free up some storage space if you would delete the deadwood.

DanielB · January 19, 2006

sell the f/4L and get the 2.8 IS, get the 100 macro, photoshop, and the 10-22, good tripod, good head

give the rest to daniel.

Poindexter · January 19, 2006

Are you dead set on only Canon lenses?

ginger_55 · January 19, 2006

Andy wrote:

Ginger, dear: don't take this the wrong way, but I'm certain you could free up some storage space if you would delete the deadwood.

Oh, Andy, you are so right!

ginger

(That is what I usually do as space gets tight, and by then it is a real chore.)

I have been reading reviews for hours...................and hours......on Canon, on FM, and prices, etc..........going to leave this place til tomorrow.

Will send my Maxtor's to all volunteers and they can clear them out for me, except for photos of my family, just can't dump them. But dogs.............please, take my dogs!!!

ScottMcLeod · January 19, 2006

Andy wrote:

Sell your 17-40L
Buy 16-35 f/2.8L (added benefit of faster lens for your indoor church shots).

This will cost you net, about $600-700. Add that to the cost of pshop, and one more splurge. Then save the rest for a photographic emergency.

I second andy.

ginger_55 · January 20, 2006

I read many conflicting reviews on the 16-35 on FM. Do any of you have that lens?

Is it really better than the 17-40, especially for the difference in price?

ginger

Also, the 85's were debated that way, too. Plus, I realized that they are not macros, so the point is not there.

Then the 100 Macro, again, dissenting reviews.

No, I am not totally hung up on Canon, especially for the Macro, or cheaper lens. I would not pay thousands for a non Canon, but a few hundred, if there were a reason............. I did have a Tamron on back order at one time. It no longer serves my needs, and no one had it in when I wanted it, but I am open to suggestions on the Macro.

I am sick, probably already mentioned that, and I just had to get off the computer... Went to sleep, didn't eat, pass go or anything, just went to sleep. Am still not even hungry.

May go to the dr............ by the time I was through earlier I didn't care if I ever saw another lens. But that will change completely!

Osprey Whisperer · January 20, 2006

:uhoh

http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=13269024&SKID=CE06999024225J5&SID=newused&BID=CE&CID=06&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0

Poindexter · January 20, 2006

ginger_55 wrote:

No, I am not totally hung up on Canon, especially for the Macro, or cheaper lens.

Good. The Tamron 90mm Macro gets great reviews on the FM Forums. Although it is the same price as the Canon 100mm it can be had for quite a bit less in the second hand market. Many people rave about the colors it puts off. I've only played with it in my local camera store.

Macro is great fun and I use the EF-S 60mm, but can see where someone wanting to shoot bugs (butterflies in your case

) would want a bit more focal length. Another Macro lens that gets strong recommendations on the FM Forums is the Sigma 150mm Macro.

My next thought might make a few Canon-philes jump out at me, but if you want a long lens have you ever considered the Sigma 50-500mm (aka Bigma)?

B&H Prices -

Tamron 90mm Macro: $489
Sigma 150mm Macro: $579
Bigma 50-500mm: $969
Sigma 1.4x TC: $159

rutt · January 20, 2006

I got an idea. What about a better monitor? In fact, what about an iMac?

ginger_55 · January 20, 2006

Poindexter wrote:

Good. The Tamron 90mm Macro gets great reviews on the FM Forums. Although it is the same price as the Canon 100mm it can be had for quite a bit less in the second hand market
B&H Prices -

Tamron 90mm Macro: $489
Sigma 150mm Macro: $579
Bigma 50-500mm: $969
Sigma 1.4x TC: $159

I have always wondered what the Bigma actually was: kind of like the loch ness monster, or that Saska..........whatever that roams around somewhere.

What do they actually say about it? I think Steve C had one, but could sell it or something as he got a 400, or something...............that was the last I heard on it.

Now I have the 400 5.6 that everyone seems to have discovered, love it. I would not give it up, as I had the impression that the Bigma was really a specialty lens and I use the 400 too much to call it just a specialty lens. I, uh, actually do landscapes with it, smile. Shoot people, dogs......

I am really confused as to trading my 17-40 for the 16-35, all Ls, after reading FM. Some hate that lens, worst thing they ever shot with. Others love it, best thing they ever shot with. But it is a love hate thing, it is a lot of money difference, and all I gain is two stops. I could do as Rutt suggested and get the 10-22 to play with, a lens I used to covet, then get that cheapie 1.8 (it would be again for me, but keep the sand out of it this time).

I just don't know what the big thing is on the 16-35, and I wish ANDY would tell me............ I don't want to actually pass up a good thing.

I will certainly think about that Tamron for Macro!

thanks,

ginger

(I have not been posting much and really gave up on this, as I am really sick. Had Bill wake me up this AM, so I could call the doctor's office. I try not to go into the weekend sick, especially when it starts affecting my breathing. I was actually more interested in breathing last night than I was in lenses, smile.)

NHBubba · January 20, 2006

rutt wrote:

Andy and Pathfinder are giving you good advice, but I have another suggestion.
10-22 UWA for wide angle fun

...
That's only a little over $1k, leaving you lot's of dry powder, especially if you sell your current wide zoom.

By current zoom you mean her 17-40/4L, right? Do you really recommend dumping the 17-40 in favor of the 10-22? I mean I think the 10-22 is tons of fun as well, but surely there's space in her collection for both, right? Especially if she ever dreams of going FF..

ginger_55 wrote:

I wonder if I could use that extension tube set with my 70-200 f 4, or if it would be too dark. That would be an ideal set up.

I do this. Here are a couple rough examples.

Sorry, dunno what happened to the EXIF on these.

I honestly haven't come anywhere close to mastering macro photography, so I might not be the guy to listen to about this combo. But I find it just meh. I really wanted the 100/2.8 macro.. but I just couldn't swing it, so I bought the kenko tubes instead. I find things get real dark real fast. I'd much rather have a 2.8 macro. Also focusing can be a chore.. but then that's on my DRebel too. Your 20D might do a better job of it.

rutt · January 20, 2006

Don't sell a lens you love until you are sure you are done with it. Buy that 16-35 f/2.8 and don't sell the 17-40 f/4. You can always return the 16-35 within 30 days if you buy mail order from B&H, Adorama &etc. See if you still use your 17-40 in a week or so. There really isn't much risk. You can return or sell one later.

The same is true of the 10-22. You can always sell or return it.

Andy has been trying to teach us. Your photographic equipment shouldn't be viewed as a static asset. It's an asset pool. You swap in and out new elements as it fits your will and needs. Take good care of your stuff and you lose little when you sell. It's a very modern view.

Spend my money for me?

Comments