What New Toy Shoud I Get


Status
Not open for further replies.

bobotto

New Member
Aug 27, 2003
134
0
0
www.pbase.com
#1
Hey guys,

If I'm lucky I might be able to squeeze $2k from my parents in exchange for cleaning the house toilets for life.
haha

Just wondering if u guys got any reccomendations on what new toys I should get.

Current Gear:

  • Canon 10D
  • 28-105mm 3.5-5.6 (?) zoom
  • Sigma 500 Super (can only be used in manual mode with my 10D as it is NOT the DG version)

Although in theory the manual Sigma will train my flash skills yada yada...
but in practise it is a real pain esp when I'm doing events!

Furthermore sometimes feel that my 28-105 does not focus well.
Due mainly my fault I think.
But does the L glasses give Significantly sharper/contrasty pictures?


Have just been hooked to fashion recently and dun think I'll be switching over soon.
But it'll be nice to have a lens that can cover events and street too.


Thinking of getting:
  • 550EX (new)
  • 24-70mm 2.8 L (used)

I was thinking the 70 (112mm effective) should be enough for studio shoots while the wide will be good for my street.

What do you guys think?

- Bob
 

Witness

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,946
0
0
33
www.maverickatwork.com
#2
the wide end is good enuff for streets,,,,,but not good enuff for landscape....
tink properly before u buy.....u dun wanna regret it.... 70 for shooting stage fashion i dun tink enuff also le.....
 

satan_18349

Deregistered
May 6, 2004
1,498
0
0
hell 極樂世&
#3
Wa....still can get $2k just for washing toilet????? man you got a good life har...wonder how the kids nowadays still need to work ornt.... :dunno:

Just kidding... :D

Btw...think you need at least a 105 unless you are very close to the stage...
 

Feb 3, 2002
1,741
0
0
Singapore
#4
Have you considered the 28-135 USM IS? It's a pretty good lens as well - get a 25 mm extension tube and you get macro capability too. The best part is, it costs probably half of a 24-70L.
 

bobotto

New Member
Aug 27, 2003
134
0
0
www.pbase.com
#5
satan_18349 said:
Wa....still can get $2k just for washing toilet????? man you got a good life har...wonder how the kids nowadays still need to work ornt.... :dunno:
Wahaha.
Of coz I was just kidding.

I have to clean the dishes sometimes too!
haha

Seriously though, what I meant by fashion was actually more like studio or even outdoor shoots. Not stage fashion.

Heard that 105 (effective) is the min to get a "normal" perspective.
It is of coz better if I can get a longer lense so I can get more bokeh and perspective.
Thus my question is, is 112mm (effective) good enuff for most shoots?

- Bob
 

bobotto

New Member
Aug 27, 2003
134
0
0
www.pbase.com
#6
imaginary_number said:
Have you considered the 28-135 USM IS? It's a pretty good lens as well - get a 25 mm extension tube and you get macro capability too. The best part is, it costs probably half of a 24-70L.
One reason I'm thinking of getting the 24-70L is coz it is a f/2.8 constant.
And it has a min focusing of 38cm.
So I can really go "in your face" close when doing street!

however it is a blardee dumbell at 1kg leh.
Those with this lense, is ur right arm bigger then ur left?
haha

- Bob
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
38
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#7
How about...

Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
then u can sell away your current lens and flash to get a 550EX

your $2k should be enough for all these


Lastly....

BUY :cheergal: BUY :cheergal: BUY
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
38
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#8
bobotto said:
One reason I'm thinking of getting the 24-70L is coz it is a f/2.8 constant.
And it has a min focusing of 38cm.
So I can really go "in your face" close when doing street!

however it is a blardee dumbell at 1kg leh.
Those with this lense, is ur right arm bigger then ur left?
haha

- Bob
hmm...for me i have been using a lot of 70-200 f2.8, so when i was using a 28-70 f2.8 that i borrowed from my friend recently....i found it damn light ;p
 

bobotto

New Member
Aug 27, 2003
134
0
0
www.pbase.com
#9
Wai said:
BUY :cheergal: BUY :cheergal: BUY
Haha.
I also think so.
:bsmilie:

The Sigma's are indeed very tempting.
But actually if really can get another lense, dun really think I need such a long lense 70-200.
Would prefer something wider for street.

However, how does the Sigma compare to a "L"?

- Bob
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,537
0
0
Visit site
#10
sigma 24-70/2.8..pic is sharp :thumbsup: but af not too smooth..hehe
 

#11
As the saying goes, most lenses perform well at f8. Once it's stopped down to f8, the difference is marginal. I've seen studio shots done by my friend using an EF 28-90 kit lens on a SLR and he had it blown up to S8R, it's tack sharp.

If you have $2K, use it for training and building your portfolio rather, it's more worth it. I think the 28-105 is quite sufficient for your needs already. ;)
 

Sputnik

New Member
Apr 24, 2003
203
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#14
try making your own money for a change ... and then squeeze money out of yourself ... it might give greater satisfaction in the long run ...

pete ... an offstoner .. uses a S2Pro and normal lens ... can still produce very good professional results for his clients.... that is pretty commendable....

cheers
 

jeff49er

Senior Member
Apr 11, 2003
1,977
0
0
48
Punggol Park
#16
Sad but true fact a used 24-70L will rarely be offered below $2000.


I like the Canon 50mm f1.4 and Sigma 24-70 f2.8. In the latest issue of Practical Photograhy the magazine highly recommend this Sigma lens. Clive likes the lens but the AF is slower and if you are not taking any sports pic or any fast pace action shoots then you can buy the sigma

However the Sigma is heavy about 900 grammes and the filter ( 82mm) wont be cheap. 77mm uv filter by Hoya costs $70 - this can indicate how much you gonna pay for a 82mm.

50mm f1.4 cost $600 with no filter
550ex costs about $600
Sigma 24-70 costs about $700

Just nice for $2000 budget.

Happy shopping
 

#18
jeff49er said:
Sad but true fact a used 24-70L will rarely be offered below $2000.


I like the Canon 50mm f1.4 and Sigma 24-70 f2.8. In the latest issue of Practical Photograhy the magazine highly recommend this Sigma lens. Clive likes the lens but the AF is slower and if you are not taking any sports pic or any fast pace action shoots then you can buy the sigma

However the Sigma is heavy about 900 grammes and the filter ( 82mm) wont be cheap. 77mm uv filter by Hoya costs $70 - this can indicate how much you gonna pay for a 82mm.

50mm f1.4 cost $600 with no filter
550ex costs about $600
Sigma 24-70 costs about $700

Just nice for $2000 budget.

Happy shopping
Between the 50mm f1.4 and the f1.8, it's just crazy money to fork out for the f1.4. The 50 1.8 is fast in AF, silent and bright enough. To pay that much extra for the distance scale and the USM, :thumbsd:
 

Garion

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2002
5,528
0
0
44
West side of S'pore
Visit site
#19
CaeSiuM said:
Between the 50mm f1.4 and the f1.8, it's just crazy money to fork out for the f1.4. The 50 1.8 is fast in AF, silent and bright enough. To pay that much extra for the distance scale and the USM, :thumbsd:
The bokeh is better. Thats what people claim, anyway. Have not used this lens in person yet.

Whether or not to pay an extra $500+ to have better bokeh is up to the individual I guess.
 

jeff49er

Senior Member
Apr 11, 2003
1,977
0
0
48
Punggol Park
#20
Terence said:
Not true, I have one for sale starting under $2k, and it looks brand new (except for the hood).

Take a look...

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=697948#post697948
You are the first one to offer starting below $2k. So far others have quoted $2k for such a premium lens.

Anyway all the best for your sale :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.