There are so many lenses to choose from! Help!

[downtrodden]

Hey guys,

Sorry in advance for the lengthy post!

I just found out my monthly income is raising drastically starting august, So i'm reworking my budget. The first several months of this extra income, i plan on devoting toward a new camera system.

I've already decided on the camera, the EOS 1D Mark III is for me(yes i've held one for a while and know how heavy it's going to be). Now it's down to lenses. I have worked in the 4,500 for the camera (cord camera) and I figure I can spend 3,000-4,500 on extra gear and need you guys to help me spend it. This money needs to buy me Lenses, Flash and Continuous lighting.

I know what the MM means and the F stop, I just don't understand exactly what the MM range brings to the image or zoom range of the SLR world (coming from and thinking in terms of 12x zoom on my point and shooter)

I know very little else about lenses, so how about I tell you guys what i like to use my current camera for and you guys can tell me what lens best suits my needs. And if you could give me a price, that would help too.

Keeping in mind the 1D Mark III is compatible with EF Lenses...

1. The thing i shoot most is Macro. I'd like a lens that allows me to get as "personal" with my subject as the DCR-250/S3 combo allow me to get. A minimum focus distance greater than 4-6 inches would be nice, but not necessary. I don't like cropping my macros much so get me really personal with my spiders please! I rarely don't use the flash (only turn it off for skittish subjects) so Image Stabilization would be NICE but it's by no means a deal breaker.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1294/559549759_cbfacec713.jpg
(this jumping spider is only a few millimeters long and i only cropped a small section of photo away to putthe ration to 8X10)

2. The thing that got me into photography is Pin up... like.. bettie page and playboy and suicide girls. and this is an avenue i'd like to pursue. The lens would need to be crisp and sharp from edge to edge. This lens would be used in nearly every lighting condition imaginable. Image Stabilization is a must here- and if you can combine what i want in this lens with what i want in my third lens into one Lens, that would be awesome. Think Maxim Magazine, GQ, Playboy or other things like that.


3. walk around/medium zoom lens. This is low on the list because I don't walk around taking pictures a lot. (except macros) mostly because i'm legally blind, so sometimes don't see things to take pictures of. Still though, occasionally i'll know i'm going to see X building or X fountain or what not, but that's a rare occurrence.

4. LEAST important to me is a long zoom lens. the only time i use the 12x zoom of my S cameras are for macros with the DCR250 and for moon shots. So if a decent zoom lens with IS can be squeezed in after the above 2 or 3 lenses, then great, if not, no biggie at all.

Phew! that was a mouthful!

Also, any help on a decent flash (because i have no idea what i'm looking at or looking for there) and any ideas for continuous lighting would help a lot too. If you think this is a tall order for the budget allowed, then please let me know why and how much over it would need to be.

Thank you all so much for your time and again, sorry for the length. I just don't want to make mistakes when tossing around this kinda cash.

~Cory

[coldrain]

Hmmm, a 1D mk III right away, huh?
The 1.3x crop factor will have a downside with macro, 1.6x crop factor will get things a bit bigger.

But anyway.... macro lenses.
For insects that do not allow you very close, a tele macro is best used.
The Canon EF 180mm f3.5 L USM is, together with the Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro, the best long macro lens you can get.
The Canon has the added advantage of faster silent AF with its USM ring motor.

To get closer that 1:1, you should also get a Soligor 1.7x teleconvertor of the cheap kind. It has very good optics, is a nice compromise between 1.4x and 2x TC's in terms of resolution loss, added reach, and loss of light.
The 180mm + 1.7x TC will give you 1.6:1 macro.

To get even closer you will need a lens that is unique to Canon, the Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro.
You can not shoot insects that do not allow you very close with it.
So.. I would recommend getting both options. This will be the ultimate macro setup, but also will use up about half of your gear budget (if you were talking about USD....).

For macro flash, I'd look at a Novoflex Flash-Art.

Your budget for extra gear, for all that you want to do, just seems a bit low.... Maybe you should consider a different camera body?

For a walk around lens on a 30D you could have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro as affordable option.... for an 1D mk III maybe the Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 would be an option but that is not really wide. A Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 is another USD $1000 (+?).... and heavy.

To me it just seems that you are reaching too high for your first DSLR, and that this also pushes costs up.

I thought the 1D MK III was a bit cheaper, are you not talking about US dollars? If not, then your budget is even smaller, more problematic... since you will need to invest in good studio light equipment for the "pin up" stuff...

[Nickcanada]

Wow, I don't have very much advice to give because I don't have any experience with any of that stuff but good luck on whatever you choose! and congrats on the new found cash!:cool:

[Rooz]

too many lens' to choose, a MkIII and a shitload of cash...some problem you have there. lol

[canonwire]

too many lens' to choose, a MkIII and a shitload of cash...some problem you have there. lol

Its a problem I would like to have.

Buy them all!!!!!!!!!

[DonSchap]

Well, I'm with Coldrain on the Macro Lenses ... although I've just been a viewer, not an owner of these fine pieces of glass.

When it comes to just knocking around with a lens, I go for lightness along with range. My choice would be the TAMRON SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD ... which weighs all of 18 ounces. It covers the normal to short telephoto and coupled to a 1.3x dcf ... that's effectively a 36-100mm lens. An excellent range for knocking around with. Also, the minmum focusing distance of this lens is a fabulous 13" throughout the range.

It doesn't have IS ... if you want that, you have to surrender to a weight increase of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ... and surrender the f/2.8 aperture. Personally, I'll take the wider-aperature, reduced weight and the reduced cost, every time.

Obviously, long-glass is not your bag, so I won't even go there. :D

That's my nickel's worth ... good luck with that excellent camera body, though. Still need built in IS, me thinks.

[RichNY]

Cory, considering your total budget you aren't leaving yourself much for glass and unless you are shooting sports I really think you'd be much happier with a 5D than the Mark III. I own a 30D and 1D MarkIIN which has the same 1.3x crop factor. Except for when I'm shooting sports and need the superfast AF I've got to tell you that the 1.3x crop really stinks.

If you've got a 30D you have great glass options for ultrawide like the 10-22, and great glass for walking around like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

If you've got a 5D FF camera you've got the 16-35 and 24-70 or 24-105 lenses. This same glass on the 1.3x body just isn't wide enough.

For what you are looking to do the 5D should take better images, will buy you more good glass in your overall budget, and will give you practical walk around solutions.

If I were you the glass I'd be looking at would be the 16-35 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, Canon 180 Macro, and the 85L f/1.2. I'd also suggest the Canon MT-24EX flash for your macro and a 580EX II flash for other times. I'd also consider purchasing the BG-E4 Vertical Grip/Battery Holder.

This brings you right up to $9425 using B&H prices. By the time you add a decent tripod/ballhead/macro rails, macro extension tubes, some CF cards, and a decent bag you are already up at least another $1000 minimum. (Taking out the 85L could bring you back into budget but I think you'd really put the extreme shallow DOF to good artistic use)

Considering you are used to zoom v. the focal length in mm that we use in the DSLR world the 70-200 is just a little less than what would be your equivalent of 6x zoom so although the lens might look physically large it is staying within the parameters you originally put out.

The MIII is also going thru some AF issues right now when shooting in burst mode. I was originally going to replace my 1D Mark IIN with one but decided to hold off until a later date. I've seen lots of your images over the past year and I really think that for the type of shooting that you've been posting the 5D is a much better solution.

[toriaj]

I know what the MM means and the F stop, I just don't understand exactly what the MM range brings to the image or zoom range of the SLR world (coming from and thinking in terms of 12x zoom on my point and shooter)

Congratulations on your new finances! Do you have a new job opportunity?

The wide end of your S3 goes down to 36 mm. To get that wide on the Mark III you'd need a 28mm lens. The long end of the S3 is 432 mm, or 332mm on the Mark III. Usually for full-length portraits (I'm thinking Bettie Page here) about 50mm is used, or 39mm on the Mark III. With macro lenses, be sure to check out the focus distance and magnification ratio (I mean, the 1:1 or 2:1, whatever) along with the focal length.

It sounds like if you get a good macro lens (and I've seen incredible results with the Tamron 90 mm) and a medium-length IS lens for portraits (I bet the 17-55 IS lens would give you enough range) you'd probably have a good start.

Maybe renting or borrowing some lenses would be a good idea to give you a feel for what you like ... especially on your macro shots. You could also look at the EXIF on the pics you take, see what range you usually use (in your non-macro shots.)

Good luck, I can't wait to see your results!

[nap]

I believe Cory has some reasons why he needs the Mark III (specifically the live-view LCD). Wow, congratulations for having the "I have cash, what can I buy?" problem!

[coldrain]

I believe Cory has some reasons why he needs the Mark III (specifically the live-view LCD). Wow, congratulations for having the "I have cash, what can I buy?" problem!
Of course he has reasons to want a D1 MK III. We all have our reasons to want one. That is not the point though, the point is that he will not have enough money for the lenses and light equipment.

So... either go down in lens/light equipment requirements, go down in body costs, or up the budget.

Personally I would find the lenses more important than the live view ith manual focus. Would I want both? Yes of course.

[nqjudo]

Coldrain is right. Not everyone who has enough money to buy a Ferrari should own one and with good reason. Having it does not mean that it will be used to it's full potential and it does not guarantee a good user experience just because it is in the top of it's class. I know plenty of folks who have purchased luxury products that have given them little or no use. The passion for photography must be in the photographer - not the equipment. Even the best equipment in the world can become a rarely used toy. This is only to make a comment in general and not toward the original poster.

Having said that, this is a capitalist society and one is free to do whatever one wants with his/her finances and spending it on photography gear is as good a venture as any. Of course, one would be nuts to do so if he/she hasn't yet assured themselves of being able to maintain a comparable lifestyle after retirement. Anyway, any of the above-mentioned equipment will make excellent choices. I am partial to the Canon 10 - 22, the Canon 24 - 105 F/4L IS USM, Canon 100 or 180 macro, MR-14EX macro ring flash (no, not the 24EX. I know the 24EX is higher end but in my experience the 14EX produces better overall results. That's just a personal preference), 580EX flash and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

Enjoy the new stuff, let us know what you finally went with and... good luck carrying this stuff around. I think that I would go nuts lugging just the body and an L lens or two around. Then again, I might hire an assistant ;)

[drama]

Congrats Cory :)
Dont buy all your stuff in one go

[Rooz]

My choice would be the TAMRON SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD ... which weighs all of 18 ounces. It covers the normal to short telephoto and coupled to a 1.3x dcf ... that's effectively a 36-100mm lens. An excellent range for knocking around with. Also, the minmum focusing distance of this lens is a fabulous 13" throughout the range.
.

you want him to put a bodgy tamron lens on a MkIII ?? :eek:

i mean seriously, lotsa questions must be raised with this combination which i feel is frought with danger...would it even fit ? did canon build in a "crappy lens auto-eject button" ? will he be stoned to death by other 1D users ? would the MkIII shut down in protest ? would it be against the law in some countries ? :D

[DonSchap]

You know Rooz (tongue in cheek), there are some lenses that are a cut above the rest. The award-winning TAMRON SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) just happens to be one of them. If you want to forego weight ... not invest in IS-glass ... and have a lens that will not vignette on you and still have a relatively low light capability, dollar for dollar, you can not beat what this will turn out.

If you insist and spending skads of money ... for a "marginally" improved shot from a Canon lens ... believe me when I say they are ready, willing, and able to draw a red ring around your selection and nick you the obligatory extra $1000 for it.

I would shoot this lens on any camera ... and be just fine with the result, and it won't break the bank or my back. There are true "values" out there. :cool:

[coldrain]

While the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Di is sharp, it does not have the contrast nor the "pop" of Canon lenses like teh 24-70 f2.8 L (or Nikon 28-70 f2.8).

So... yes, it will work, and yes, it will be sharp enough. But bokeh wise, AF wise and colour/contrast wise, it is not the best option.
So... why spend so much for a DSLR, when you end up puting such lenses on it? Lenses have a bigger impact on the photo overall than a camera has, and contrast, colour and quality of bokeh have a bigger impact on overall photo impact that just sharpness.

[AdamW]

Cory--downtrodden--

I'm making an assumption here, but from what you've written on other threads, is the reason you're considering the MKIII because of the live view and your macular degeneration? If so, then stick with that choice. If not, then I agree with Rich that the 5D might be a better choice for you and the type of photography you do.

[Rooz]

You know Rooz (tongue in cheek), there are some lenses that are a cut above the rest. The award-winning TAMRON SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) just happens to be one of them. If you want to forego weight ... not invest in IS-glass ... and have a lens that will not vignette on you and still have a relatively low light capability, dollar for dollar, you can not beat what this will turn out.

If you insist and spending skads of money ... for a "marginally" improved shot from a Canon lens ... believe me when I say they are ready, willing, and able to draw a red ring around your selection and nick you the obligatory extra $1000 for it.

I would shoot this lens on any camera ... and be just fine with the result, and it won't break the bank or my back. There are true "values" out there. :cool:

lol glad you took it the way it was meant Don. :)

i can understand the recommendation for someone with an xti or 30d, heck even a 5D. but seriously, can you really see a guy who buys a MkIII buying this lens ? if weight/ price was an issue then he would hardly be picking up a brand spanking new MkIII which has just been released and is at the top of its price cycle. i think L glass is the order of the day in this case.

anything else would be like putting 1967 whitewall hoosiers on a brand new Ferrari F430 :p

[XaiLo]

Rooz, you gotta problem with whitewalls man? :D

[AdamW]

Cory--

For the price of a MKIII (US$4,500 at B&H) you can buy a 5D (US$2,630 at B&H) and Zigview S2 (Type C) Digital Angle Finder (US$470 at B&H) and still have money left over.

Zigview S2 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/460257-REG/Zigview_S2C_Zigview_S2_Type_C_.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/460257-REG/Zigview_S2C_Zigview_S2_Type_C_.html)

26293


26292

[RichNY]

Good idea- and you also can shoot wide, have a FF sensor, more mpix for cropping, and that Zigview can work with AF.

On a side note, friends don't let friends buy Tamron :)

Cory--

For the price of a MKIII (US$4,500 at B&H) you can buy a 5D (US$2,630 at B&H) and Zigview S2 (Type C) Digital Angle Finder (US$470 at B&H) and still have money left over.

Zigview S2 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/460257-REG/Zigview_S2C_Zigview_S2_Type_C_.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/460257-REG/Zigview_S2C_Zigview_S2_Type_C_.html)

[XaiLo]

Cory, congrats dude couldn't be happier for you man. happy shooting. :)

[downtrodden]

Brilliant! That does open up a lot more options for my special needs. And i do thank you lots! Now though, has anyone ever seen one in person? I'll have to stop into my local camera store soon and see if i can't play around with one. that'd be great! Thanks a lot!

~Cory

[AdamW]

Now I want a Zigview! It comes with a remote cord so it can work off-camera (as in the picture) and it has a shutter release and other cool stuff.

I hope you can find one to try out there in Ohio. If not, maybe you can buy one before you buy a camera and try it out on a body in a store. You'd have to get it from somewhere that has a good return policy, though...

[adam75south]

i guess i'll address the lighting. personally i have fotodiox lights. probably as cheap as it gets for strobes, but they suit me.
here's a link to the ones i have. very powerful lights. their site is very slow so be patient.
http://www.fotodiox.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=29&products_id=4148

i'd suggest getting a cheap new or used setup for now since you're starting out. no sense in spending 2500 bucks for some visatec lights when you can get something that will work good enough for $600.

i bought 2 600 w/s fotodiox, 1 150 w/s strobe, stands, umbrellas, and bag...for $500 at a pawn shop.

[downtrodden]

phew.. been scouing over all the lens/flash options presented here trying to get a list of tentative lenses i want. Thank you everyone for your responses!

Now I really like what I see in the EF 85L F1.2 but i have a question-
On the 5D stacking the 85 F1.2 against the 85 F1.8- would you shell out the extra grand for the F1.2 or go for the F1.8 and then drop the extra grand in another lens? I'm impressed by images i've seen on both lenses.

Thanks in advance for any insight...

~Cory

[RichNY]

Cory- They are different lenses for different purposes sharing a common focal length. The f/1.8 is a fast focusing sharp lens that's great for general purpose shooting be it portrait or indoor low light sports.

The 85 f/1.2 is a lens that not only gives you superior color to the f/1.8 (which is good to start with) but it also gives you the ability for amazing shallow DOF and has a really beautiful creamy bokeh. The 85 f/1.8 isn't a crap lens like the 50 f/1.8, it's a long term keeper but for the creative type shots that you like to take I can't see what else you'd want to get over this- considering your total budget it is worth the extra grand. If you had to cut back somewhere else personally I'd cut back from the 180L macro to the 100 macro before I'd give up the 85 f/1.2.

I would also definately look into buying used v. new equipment. Why be the one to take the initial hit? I can get back over 100% on all of the pre-owned glass and the 1D Mark IIN body I've purchased, can't say the same about the new glass or 30D.






phew.. been scouing over all the lens/flash options presented here trying to get a list of tentative lenses i want. Thank you everyone for your responses!

Now I really like what I see in the EF 85L F1.2 but i have a question-
On the 5D stacking the 85 F1.2 against the 85 F1.8- would you shell out the extra grand for the F1.2 or go for the F1.8 and then drop the extra grand in another lens? I'm impressed by images i've seen on both lenses.

Thanks in advance for any insight...

~Cory

[mcenut]

Having owned and used a Tamron lens, not the 28-75mm one in question, I have compiled a pro and con list vs the Canon 24-70mm L lens.

Tamron 28-75mm

Pro:
Image quality.
Weight.
f/2.8 aperture.
Good build quality.
Price.

Con:
Focus speed (while very quick, no where near USM speed.)

Canon 24-70mm L

Pro:
Image quality.
f/2.8 aperture.
Great build quality.
USM focus speed.

Con:
Price.
Weight.

Draw your own conclusions. For me, the focus speed of the Canon lens is worth the extra cost. I owned one 15 year old USM Canon lens at the same time I owned my new Tamron. The focus speed of the Canon made me use it more than the better image quality Tamron. I sold the Tamron to buy additional Canon USM lenses.