[Dominat0r]

I have the kit lens only atm...going to pick up a 50mm 1.8 i think ...people say its a great lens.

I really want a 28-105 IS that comes with the new EOS line of cameras, heard that a nice sharp lens.

Still need a good EX flash too....BAH sooo expensive hehe.

 

[laxx]

50 1.8 is pretty sweet for it's price. I'm not a fan of how it feels or the focus ring, but you can't complain at ~$70.

I personally figured if I like it, I'd end up selling it to get a 50 f1.4, so I just went ahead and got one of those.

I use flash pretty often, so I bought a 580EX pretty early, I think it was my third purchase, first being my XT, then lan's Tamron 28-75. No matter how much I like the 580EX, I always wonder how much better the Nikon SB flashes are. Everywhere I read I see how the Nikon flash setup is far superior. If anyone can inform me, I'd appreciate it alot.

As for lenses, I also own a 70-200 f4, and I'm looking to upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8 IS before Spring. My friend has one and showed me the pics he took handheld indoors in a not so well lit area (Seaport Market). That alone had me sold.

 

[Towert7]

HighLife, the 50mm's are wonderful for what they do, but with a fixed focal length you are limited to the framing of certain pictures (which can be a PAIN... especially when a fleeting landscape shot is upon you).

I don't know. Personally I would start off with a budget mid range zoom and a budget tele zoom assuming I was strapped for money. For the midrange, preferably something that could focus close.

As for the nikon flashes, they are simply amazing! I have the cheapest SB400, and for what it does it's amazing! Incredibly small, beautiful colors when WB is set to auto (I can not stress how nice the colors are!), and it couldn't be any easier to use (all it's got is an on/off switch).
My only gripe is when I flip the camera 90º, the flash can't rotate to bounce off the ceiling. I think the SB600 and SB800 can do that.

That's one thing that worries me about the Canon system, the flash systems, simply because I hear everyone rave about how much better the flashes are on the Nikons.............. I have no idea though.

 

[pretzelb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif HighLife, the 50mm's are wonderful for what they do, but with a fixed focal length you are limited to the framing of certain pictures (which can be a PAIN... especially when a fleeting landscape shot is upon you). I don't know. Personally I would start off with a budget mid range zoom and a budget tele zoom assuming I was strapped for money. For the midrange, preferably something that could focus close.

I would disagree with this advice. I didn't read up on HighLife's interests but the nifty fifty is hard to pass for the price of around $75.

My new philosophy on this topic is unless you have a specific need for a zoom lens, you should look at prime lenses first. Not only do you save money but in many cases you get better image quality. So if you're not trying to take pictures of your child playing sports while you sit on the sidelines, the limits of focusing with your feet or not having a super zoom are really not that big a deal imo. Of course tons of people get cameras JUST to shoot their children so a zoom does suit many people. But I think people try to talk themself into the need for a zoom and then pay the price in the wallet and in the results.

I think the bottom line is education. If you know what you're doing and the basics of photography then you can shoot with anything. I've seen some people do amazing things with the worst lenses, just because they knew how to do it. But if you're like me and sometimes have trouble keeping all the figures in your head, using a faster prime lens will save you tons of shots in the long run.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pretzelb /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would disagree with this advice. I didn't read up on HighLife's interests but the nifty fifty is hard to pass for the price of around $75. My new philosophy on this topic is unless you have a specific need for a zoom lens, you should look at prime lenses first. Not only do you save money but in many cases you get better image quality. So if you're not trying to take pictures of your child playing sports while you sit on the sidelines, the limits of focusing with your feet or not having a super zoom are really not that big a deal imo. Of course tons of people get cameras JUST to shoot their children so a zoom does suit many people. But I think people try to talk themself into the need for a zoom and then pay the price in the wallet and in the results. .

I would disagree with this advice.

For me, I would hate to have only primes! Goodness, that would limit me so much.
See, I go out photographing for a whole day at a time. I'm a college student. I'll put my 18-200mm zoom on my camera in the morning, and that'll last me the whole day. It means I take a MUCH smaller camera bag, and it's much lighter! Also looks more inconspicuous! It should be noted that I walk around a large campus, I don't drive, so carrying the least amount of gear is a priority !

Once in a blue moon i'll feel inspired to attach my 50mm on the camera, but throughout the day I'm usually feeling like I missed a few photo ops that would have been real nice.

Also, with a large zoom, I'm not missing photos while changing between fixed focal length lenses.
"Ok, i'm taking a picture of this nice flower...... oh but wait, what a lovely sunset. :sigh:, let me dig around in my bag, change my 200mm for my 20mm, then put everything away... and .... oh no, the wonderful colors are gone!!!"
Instead, I'll take the convience of: "what a nice flower, oh look at that sunset!!! *Drew moves the focal length ring*, Click!"
Ya know? Who cares if the image is a little bit softer, if it means I get the image, that's the important thing!

Yup, I'd start off with a mid range zoom, and a tele zoom. I would also consider the off brand ultra zoom too, if it was any good.

 

[brotherlen]

50mm is a great lens, the large aperture gives a little more freedom shooting low light. Do you have to purchase a Canon brand flash? Photography can be equally as expensive to if not more than audio products.(factor in indirect costs of travel, etc..) Sorry about your wallet.
As far as prime or zoom? I think that you should consider if you need to change lenses often, or are you going to be able to move around your subject. Sometimes I'll just shoot the 50mm for a project I'm working on.

I have two "L" lenses, they are worth every penny! Resale is high, built like a tanks. My only complaint is it's not very subtle, and draws attention.

 

[Towert7]

If I was on a college student's budget, I would seriously consider a combo like:
Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-105mm | 6469A005 | B&H
Canon | 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens | 6472A002
420$ gives you 2 lenses that cover the majority of what I would use.

I'd also seriously consider (moreso than the above) an ultra zoom like:
Tamron | 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di Autofocus Lens | AF061C700
Tamron | AF 28-200mm Super Zoom f/3.8-5.6 XR Di Lens | AF031C700
300-380$, wow!

That's if I was strapped for money. That way you can at least have the flexibility to take a wide range of pictures, from up close to far away. And it's darn light and compact to boot!

After that, then I would start investing in some L lenses when I felt the need to upgrade, but only then.

Now if I had money to spare, heck, just ploop down for the L's to begin with!

 

[raptor84]

Actually skip canon;s 75-300 as the image quality leaves MUCH to be desired. If you want a cheap telezoom try the SIgma 70-300 . Much better image quality for the same of not lesser price.

As for me i saved and jumped form kit to L's right away hehe..

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raptor84 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually skip canon;s 75-300 as the image quality leaves MUCH to be desired. If you want a cheap telezoom try the SIgma 70-300 . Much better image quality for the same of not lesser price. As for me i saved and jumped form kit to L's right away hehe..

That's good info!

And lucky you!

 

[Dominat0r]

How about the 28-105mm 3.5-5.6? anyone have that lens? I was looking at that and maybe a nifty fifty. Also, looking at a 420EX for my flash.

 

[raptor84]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighLife /img/forum/go_quote.gif How about the 28-105mm 3.5-5.6? anyone have that lens? I was looking at that and maybe a nifty fifty. Also, looking at a 420EX for my flash.

the 28-105 is pretty neat but on a 1.6 crop body you might find it lacking in the wide end as its roughly a 45mm equiv so you will find your self backing up alot when taking group shots. Hard to go wrong withthe 50/1.8 for the price but I'm one of the few people that dont own that lens simply because I dont shoot in that focal length.

Flash wise the 420 is pretty outdated so stretch the budget a little further and go for a 430 which gives you better battery life, faster recycle times and manual flash control. Remember to budget for a set of AA rechargeables and a charger as flash sucks alkalines FAST. Due to the voltage curve of alkaline's the recycle times also get longer and longer. Best if you can really hold off and just jump straight to a 580ex mk1 or mk2 as the extra 15 meteres in guide number does help..

 

[ecommerce813]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighLife /img/forum/go_quote.gif How about the 28-105mm 3.5-5.6? anyone have that lens? I was looking at that and maybe a nifty fifty. Also, looking at a 420EX for my flash.

You could also consider buying a Nikon SB24. Main advantages would be the low cost vs. Canon models (probably under $100) and the inclusion of a PC port, main disadvantage would be lack of ETTL. Of course this might be a good thing for a thinking photographer.

 

[Towert7]

HOLY COW ecommerce813......... you created your account in May of 2004 and you first post was to help HighLife
Amazing!

 

[ecommerce813]

My apologies to HeadFi for lurking so long. Actually, I started reading in 2004; then I realized my wallet wouldn't survive if I hung out too long. After a 3 year hiatus, I'd like to get back into things. Of course, not being qualified to speak on anything audio related, I think I'd best relegate my comments to something I'm more familiar with.

DTKan

 

[I'm broke]

What's your favorite lens? Other than the 70-200 f2.8 IS.. this is my favorite:

17-55 IS