Author Topic: Help me with my birthday wishlist :-) (Read 8989 times)

Daneel · « **on:** August 14, 2007, 12:37 »

Hi all,

I'm using (and immensly enjoying) a 400D (XTI) with a Sigma 18-50 mm f2.8 lens (excellent piece, also focus down to 20 cm giving it a maginification factor of 1:3) and a Canon 70-300 IS (again, very nice to work with although not as sharp as my Sigma). I'm also owning a good tripod.

I'm now pondering what I should put on my wishlist for my birthday and I really need your help on this. The Sigma already gives me some Macro abilities, but I think I would enjoy really getting into the microscopic world ... so maybe a good macro lens? I think that on the wide end the Sigma is already quite good with 18 mm, so I guess I don't really need a dedicated wide angel lens.

What do you think? What other lenses or photo gadgets would you recomment? I really enjoy all sorts of photography, animals with my 70-300, portraits with my Sigma, but also product and "almost" macro shots with my Sigma.

Some (very few) of my photos are on my website:
http://microstockmonitor.unfolded.com/index.php?pr=My_Photos

Most of the others are online at the diverse microstock agencies which I work with (more on this on my website).

Please give me your input. I'm desperate to get a nice new gadget for my camera hobby :-)

Thanks and all the best,
Michael

dbvirago · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2007, 12:42 »

You didn't give us a price range, but I'll throw out two. The Canon 70-200 f4L is less than $600us. You'll pay almost twice that for IS or an extra stop, so to me, this was a good entry level L lens.

On the cheap end, the Canon 50 1.8 at less than $100 is no-brainer. Very sharp, good in low light, and it has the new Bipodal zoom mechanism.

Daneel · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2007, 17:02 »

Hi!

Many thanks for your reply.

The budget would be around 300-500 Euros (top).

Quote from: dbvirago on August 14, 2007, 12:42

You didn't give us a price range, but I'll throw out two. The Canon 70-200 f4L is less than $600us. You'll pay almost twice that for IS or an extra stop, so to me, this was a good entry level L lens.

Hmm...as said above I already have the Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS. Of course, it's no L glass but I'm very happy with it - in particular with the IS.

Quote from: dbvirago on August 14, 2007, 12:42

On the cheap end, the Canon 50 1.8 at less than $100 is no-brainer. Very sharp, good in low light, and it has the new Bipodal zoom mechanism.

Again, I already have the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, which is already pretty good in low light.

Both of your recommendations would definitely enhance my current photography. However, they overlap with the abilities of my current equipment with which I'm currently rather satisfied (the fast f4 tele zoom would be quite nice, but as you say with the IS (which I love on the long end of my 70-300) it would be quite expensive).

I would rather get something which does not overlap with what I currently have. True macro microscopic photography would be cool I guess. Would the Canon 100 f2.8 macro provide a great enhancement for macro photography compared to my Sigma? Or maybe the Canon MP-E 65 mm? Do I need a ring flash with the 100 mm or is that only necessary for the MP-E 65 mm?

With the Sigma 18-50 mm I'm already quite well into the wide end, so I probably don't need a dedicated wide angle lens. Maybe a fish-eye? I'm no real fan of fish-eyes actually...but I've never extensively used them. Are they any good for (micro) stock photography?

Questions, questions, questions...but I think I'm tending towards a macro lens currently...maybe ;-)

Thanks,
Michael

Pixart · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2007, 18:37 »

Quote from: Daneel on August 14, 2007, 17:02

I think I'm tending towards a macro lens currently...maybe ;-)

Has anyone here tried using a bellows attachment for macro? I too am interested in macro, but can't justify another expensive lens right now that I wouldn't use on a daily basis. I'd be interested to know if that would be a practical interim-option or just a gadgety waste of $. Maybe Daneel would have enough for two presents that way.

Oh, Daneel... I just bought an Epson 40g viewer/storage. Was away for a week and shot and backed up several cards. The bride and groom viewed the next day and picked out the photos for their thank you cards before they took off. I really struggled with splurging for this device, but I now realize that for me it was a very good investment - especially during trips and big events. The 80 gig was $300 more. Bummer.

fleitao · « **Reply #4 on:** August 15, 2007, 20:29 »

Hi,

The EF 100 f2.8 would truly add to your macro... with a minimum focusing distance of 29cm (i guess) and 100mm it gives you 1:1 and so you can get microscopic... being also a fast lens is a good addition to your "stash"...

one other thing can be a grip... it does wonders for your camera, in terms of balance and power. It was one of my best buys...

As for the 70-200 f4, don't even think it can be slightly compared to your 70-300 IS... it's real glass... and you don't need IS for anything with that lens... i had one and it was by far the best lens i ever shot with...

Daneel · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2007, 00:15 »

Hi!

Many thanks for your replies.

I do have a small laptop, so a media storage device such as the Epson is a no-go for me :-). I don't know these bellows attachements, what are those?

Quote from: fleitao on August 15, 2007, 20:29

Hi,

The EF 100 f2.8 would truly add to your macro... with a minimum focusing distance of 29cm (i guess) and 100mm it gives you 1:1 and so you can get microscopic... being also a fast lens is a good addition to your "stash"...

Yes, it sounds nice. With my XTI crop factor the 100mm would become a 160mm ... is this a problem or is it actually an added benefit since you can stay further away from the insect which you are about to macro shoot? Would the tele be too long for light tent shots? My Sigma already goes "a bit" into macro with ~30 cm minimal focus distance and a magnification factor of 1:3. But 1:1 would probably open another dimension for me ... .

Quote from: fleitao on August 15, 2007, 20:29

one other thing can be a grip... it does wonders for your camera, in terms of balance and power. It was one of my best buys...

As for the 70-200 f4, don't even think it can be slightly compared to your 70-300 IS... it's real glass... and you don't need IS for anything with that lens... i had one and it was by far the best lens i ever shot with...

A grip would be something to think about for the balance. I wouldn't need it for the battery power, according to my current photographing habits.

70-300 IS vs. 70-200 f4. There are many many discussions on that and I read them all before going for the 70-300. Photo.net has some good comments on it (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EHlL) but also dpreview. It's really not easy and specially on the wide end the IS helps a lot. But it's also true that I see a difference in color brillance and (maybe) sharpness to my 18-50mm. This might simply be due to the tele, but maybe really due to the glass? Don't know, maybe I'll try out a 70-200 at one time.

Many thanks and all the best,
Michael

[/quote]

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2007, 07:53 »

i am a big fan of the 70-200 2.8 IS (or non IS) a great portrait lens and can zoom in on a few things as well. Known to be one of canon's sharper lenses, it is top of the line. I bought one last year and was pleasantly surprised at how much i use it. It is as heavy as anything but great for pictures of people.

If you don't want as much versatility and a little macro, then the 100 2.8 would be my second vote. It would be a great macro lens, nice for darker situations and great background blur with the 2.8 (bokeh). It would also be a great portrait lens.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2007, 08:43 »

Hi leaf, nice to see you back and to be still alive

.
Daneel, have you considered a flash? They are very usefull, much better than the on camera flash. And it is not soo expensive. The Sigma DG 500 Super is I think quite a deal, apart from its built quality.

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** August 16, 2007, 09:19 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on August 16, 2007, 08:43

Hi leaf, nice to see you back and to be still alive .

yeah, back from holidays now

and I second a flash. very handy.

Daneel · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2007, 03:10 »

Hi all,

many thanks for your inputs. Let me first heartly thank you for all your inputs.

The flash is a good idea, however I don't even use the camera flash currently. In fact I try to avoid using flash whenever possible and I also don't do much indoor shooting. My experience so far with (on camera) flashes is that using them usually means that your photos will not get accepted by the agency. Of course, this is most probably only due to my limited experience with flashes, but currently I don't see much use for a flash.

A faster telezoom such as the 70-200 f4 or the 70-200 f2.8 (even as I consider that one too bulky for my shooting habits) would be nice. However, I considered this (70-200 vs. the slower 70-300 with IS) in-depth and I decided in favour for the 70-300 because of its longer reach. I usually find myself using it extensively in the 200-300 range and I think I made the right choice for my photographing habits.

I think I will try to go into macro photography. Again, there I have many options a) starting with the straight forward Canon f2.8 100mm macro (possibly with TCs to reach even more than 1:1) b) going towards a very specialized solution such as the Canon MP-E 65 and a MT-24EX flash.

I'll now go back to reading tutorials on macro photography ... and I'll be back with macro-centered questions in a few hours or days, as time permits.

Please feel free to further comment on this thread, I'm looking forward to your insights.

All the best,
Michael

fleitao · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2007, 04:10 »

Quote from: Daneel on August 17, 2007, 03:10

A faster telezoom such as the 70-200 f4 or the 70-200 f2.8 (even as I consider that one too bulky for my shooting habits) would be nice. However, I considered this (70-200 vs. the slower 70-300 with IS) in-depth and I decided in favour for the 70-300 because of its longer reach. I usually find myself using it extensively in the 200-300 range and I think I made the right choice for my photographing habits.

Hi Michael,

I think you maybe making a wrong assumption here. That 70-300 lens loses much of it's quality after 200mm. So if you're keeping it for the range, you'll be losing a lot quality. Imo, the quality tht makes the difference between a pro looking picture and a normal one.

I had one 75-300 and sold it quicly because i couldn't use it for what i wanted. I needed the 300mm but the lens was virtually useless at that range, so i bought th 70-200 and when i needed a bit more range i'd crop, and still i managed to get more quality out of that lens.

But it's your call... Just remember that when buying the 70-300 IS you're really paying the IS, because it's still a 150$ lens, while with the 70-200 you're really paying for a 600$ lens and that makes a world of difference.

Regards

Francisco Leitão

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2007, 04:32 »

Quote from: Daneel on August 17, 2007, 03:10

The flash is a good idea, however I don't even use the camera flash currently. In fact I try to avoid using flash whenever possible and I also don't do much indoor shooting. My experience so far with (on camera) flashes is that using them usually means that your photos will not get accepted by the agency. Of course, this is most probably only due to my limited experience with flashes, but currently I don't see much use for a flash.

the reason being, you are using the built in flash

If you were using a flash gun you would have a higher chance of getting them accepted. When you use a flash gun you can bounce the flash and in essence be using a giant softbox (off the wall or ceiling) or buy a remote sender and point the flash at your subject from a totally different angle (great for outdoors). Direct flash can also be nice outdoors when the sun is behind your subject.

Daneel · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2007, 04:32 »

Hi Francisco,

your remark is well taken, I'd just like to point out that there is a huge quality difference between the old 75-300 and the current 70-300. There are comparison between the 70-300 and the 70-200 at 200mm on the web and the 70-300 does perform quite well compared to the 70-200.

Said that, I still think your point is valid and as (I think) have remarked above I do see a quality difference between my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and my Canon tele zoom. Some of this quality difference might be due to the Canon being a tele, but I do think that the 70-300's results could be better and in this sense I agree with your comment.

The alternative to the 70-300 would be a 70-200 f4 IS (the f2.8 is just too bulky for me) with an 1.4x extender. This increases the aperture by up to two stops and causes autofocus to not operate in some situations. This is just too much of a compromise for me, which is one of the reasons why I went with the 70-300. Another alternative would be to go with a prime 300mm f4 IS. This would be quite nice and would definitely result in a superior photo quality, however at the cost of flexibilitx. Given my current photographing habits I might however consider replacing the 70-300 by a 300 mm prime at some time - maybe then the 70-200 becomes a real option.

Again many thanks for your inputs. It's refreshing to discuss the different lenses with other enthusiasts.

All the best,
Michael

Daneel · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2007, 04:38 »

Quote from: leaf on August 17, 2007, 04:32

the reason being, you are using the built in flash
If you were using a flash gun you would have a higher chance of getting them accepted. When you use a flash gun you can bounce the flash and in essence be using a giant softbox (off the wall or ceiling) or buy a remote sender and point the flash at your subject from a totally different angle (great for outdoors). Direct flash can also be nice outdoors when the sun is behind your subject.

Hi leaf,

you are definitely right. I'm currently investigating macro photography and encountered the MT-24EX flash. This looks like a perfect solution for macro photography in the wild. Together with a slave flash from behind, it might even replace my light tent, but wouldn't then the light from the three flashes would be too harsh - what's your experience?

In any case, if I want to truely dive into macro photography, then a flash will definitely be a necessity!

All the best,
Michael

leaf · « **Reply #14 on:** August 17, 2007, 04:45 »

Quote from: Daneel on August 17, 2007, 04:38

but wouldn't then the light from the three flashes would be too harsh - what's your experience?

it all depends on how you use your flashes... but in short no - it shouldn't be. If the flash is large compared to the subject then it creates a soft light (the distance away from the subject has a lot to do with this).

you could do some cool things with that flash

a nice ant pic

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Help me with my birthday wishlist :-) (Read 8989 times)

Daneel

dbvirago

Daneel

Pixart

fleitao

Daneel

leaf

Freezingpictures

leaf

Daneel

fleitao

leaf

Daneel

Daneel

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors