choosing lenses


Status
Not open for further replies.

stjustin

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
137
0
0
24
#1
hi... i am getting a canon 30d(body only) and i am deciding to get 5 lenses and a ext flash...
so i need help in choosing the flash and the 4th lense
1st lense: 50mm 1.8
2nd lense: 55-200mm usm
3rd lense: tamaron 90mm macro.

pls help me fill the fourth and fifth + the external flash
!!!
thanks...;)
btw my budget for the fouthr fifth + ext flash is 1.5k...
so pls and ty!!
 

ihub88

New Member
Mar 3, 2007
586
0
0
#2
16-35 Ii

70-200 Is

580 Ex Ii
 

honda

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
558
0
0
#4
10-22 17-85is
 

FilterFunk

Senior Member
Apr 1, 2006
2,736
0
0
卧龙岗
#5
the stuff that you 3 had recommeded will burst the budget of 1.5k.. by alot :think:

how about a tamron 17-50 + 430Ex? the remainder you can get your dry cabinet/bag/batteries/other accessories.
 

Frijj

New Member
May 1, 2006
999
0
0
#6
With your budget, I'd suggest:
1) Sigma 10-20 (~$700 grey)
2) Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (~$700)
3) 2nd hand 420EX(~$250) or save up more and get the 430EX later on
 

Frijj

New Member
May 1, 2006
999
0
0
#7
Actually, instead of the 55-200, I'd rather get the Sigma 70-300 DG Macro.
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#10
Why do you need to get 5 lenses now? Rather than getting so many lenses, I would suggest that you reduce your choices to just 3 1st, and get better quality lenses instead. Eg. drop the 55-200mm from your list, get a 70-200mm f/4L instead.

Also you are not specific in what kind of photos you are taking. It will be useless recommending 10-22 if you are only interested in macro. It would seem that you are trying to get all the range on a budget. Let us know more about your area of interest and we'll be able to give you better advice.
 

Witness

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,943
0
36
33
www.maverickatwork.com
#11
iimo, t may be better to just get a 17-40, 50mm and a 70-200 .... this covers most of the range pretty well
 

stjustin

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
137
0
0
24
#12
Why do you need to get 5 lenses now? Rather than getting so many lenses, I would suggest that you reduce your choices to just 3 1st, and get better quality lenses instead. Eg. drop the 55-200mm from your list, get a 70-200mm f/4L instead.

Also you are not specific in what kind of photos you are taking. It will be useless recommending 10-22 if you are only interested in macro. It would seem that you are trying to get all the range on a budget. Let us know more about your area of interest and we'll be able to give you better advice.
i am getting 3 first then another 2;)
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#13
Why ask us? How about ask yourself?

What focal lengths do *I* need to cover the shots that *I* want?

How much should *I* spend to buy those lenses that cover those focal lengths?

The way you ask is just inviting people proposing the best (and usually also the most expensive) options to them. Not useful advice at all for you (sorry no offence mates)

You are just throwing away money by going "I want to buy 5 lenses. I got this much money. Let's blow it"
 

ahbian

Senior Member
May 23, 2006
2,467
0
0
#14
Hmm, it seems like you want lenses to cover all or almost all the different genre of photography. Is that advisable?

Or perhaps a really determined attempt to beat the GST increase in July?

Anyway, if you are really keen to get into the wide range, the canon 10-22mm is good but costs 1k+ , consider sigma 10-20 or tokina 12-24.
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#15
i am getting 3 first then another 2;)
I repeat my suggestion again. Get 3 good lenses only. If budget is tight now, go for the 70-200mm f/4L and 17-40mm f/4L 1st. That will set you back about $2.2k - $2.4k. Its a lot of $$, but you are getting quality lenses that you will not regret. If you are really on a tight budget, then go for 3rd party alternatives like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 75-300mm.

My suggestion may not be what you need, since you have not stated your area of interest.
 

stjustin

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
137
0
0
24
#17
I repeat my suggestion again. Get 3 good lenses only. If budget is tight now, go for the 70-200mm f/4L and 17-40mm f/4L 1st. That will set you back about $2.2k - $2.4k. Its a lot of $$, but you are getting quality lenses that you will not regret. If you are really on a tight budget, then go for 3rd party alternatives like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 75-300mm.

My suggestion may not be what you need, since you have not stated your area of interest.
thankyou... i am into portraits and macro and sports...
i am not in a rush for sports cause next year then i will really need it..;)
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#18
thankyou... i am into portraits and macro and sports...
i am not in a rush for sports cause next year then i will really need it..;)
For portraits and macro, your initial choice of the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is good. Next I would suggest the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L if you can afford, as I don't see you going into wide angles yet. Finally for sports I would recommend that you go for Canon 70-200mm f/4L at least, or 70-20mm f/2.8L. Of course that will depends on what kind of sports you are shooting, as 200mm will not be long enough for some sports.

Since you said that you will go into sports until next year, then hold your purchase for your telephoto lens, and get the 580EX flash 1st instead. It'll be useful for your portraits and macro photography. Also you may want to get a tripod that can be mounted horizontally, especially useful for still life macro.

In the future, you can get the Canon EFS 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 to cover your wide angle range or a longer telephoto zoom/prime to enhace your range for sports. By then, you should know what other lenses you'll need.
 

stjustin

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
137
0
0
24
#19
For portraits and macro, your initial choice of the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is good. Next I would suggest the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L if you can afford, as I don't see you going into wide angles yet. Finally for sports I would recommend that you go for Canon 70-200mm f/4L at least, or 70-20mm f/2.8L. Of course that will depends on what kind of sports you are shooting, as 200mm will not be long enough for some sports.

Since you said that you will go into sports until next year, then hold your purchase for your telephoto lens, and get the 580EX flash 1st instead. It'll be useful for your portraits and macro photography. Also you may want to get a tripod that can be mounted horizontally, especially useful for still life macro.

In the future, you can get the Canon EFS 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 to cover your wide angle range or a longer telephoto zoom/prime to enhace your range for sports. By then, you should know what other lenses you'll need.
ok... thanks for your comment...
but i am tight...
so lemme see if i can try gettin the standard and macro 1st
then what bout the 50mm 1.8?
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#20
ok... thanks for your comment...
but i am tight...
so lemme see if i can try gettin the standard and macro 1st
then what bout the 50mm 1.8?
Even though the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is cheap, buy it only if you truly will use that focal length for your shoot. That $130 can help fund some other lens or accessories that you'll need more.

As for your standard walkaround lens, since you are tight on budget, consider either the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (depending on whether you prefer the wider range or the longer reach, but for portraits I would prefer the 28-75mm).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom