Equipment Lens/flash recommendations?

Hey all,

I've got a bit of extra cash coming in on the paycheck this week and thought it's about time to treat myself to a nice new camera goodie.

There are a few things I've been considering - I'm sure that at some point, I'd like to grab most of them, but I can't really come to a decision on what I'd like first. Eventually, I'd like to have a good walkaround, telephoto, macro, and wide-angle lens, plus a flash that's a bit better than the pop-up thing on my 400D.

So here's what I'm considering:
Walkaround: 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, probably plus a lens hood.
Telephoto: 70-200 f/4 L USM (the IS USM would be nice, but I think that might be just a bit too expensive)
Flash: Speedlite 430EX, probably plus some sort of diffuser
Macro: 100 f/2.8 Macro USM
Wide-angle: 10-20 f/4-5.6 Sigma EX DC HSM (I think that translates to USM)

Like I said, I don't really have a priority for any specific item. I suppose I'd probably go for a decent telephoto before the wide-angle, but that's it. The flash isn't quite as expensive as the lenses so there's a slight chance I'd get it with a lens but I'm not sure. I'm really looking for suggestions on what might be the most useful addition to my arsenal (which currently only packs the kit 17-55 EF-S and the everyone-has-one f/1.8 50mm) in the short-term, or if anyone has a suggestion of an alternative (in around the same price range) to any of the parts I'm considering.

Of course, the idea of getting the L glass also concerns me a bit... as from what I've heard, it'll start a very, very expensive habit.

Thanks

 

Well if you're currently using the kit lens, I'd deffo go with the 28-135 to replace it. Since that's the range you'll almost definitely be using the most often, that would be my #1 priority.

By the way, I see you've linked to Amazon.. most pros in the U.S. order from B&H.. great prices and service. Not that there's anything wrong with ordering from Amazon, but because some sellers just use Amazon as a storefront, I'd say B&H is a much more reliable seller to go with. I've ordered all my stuff from them.

 

RTT told me a while ago that the 28-135 IS isn't that great. He's got the 28-105 instead - better IQ apparently. And at that range, there's an argument that you don't need IS, saving you even more dough. The Canon 10-22 is l33t - several staff here have one. I personally have the 70-300 IS - couldn't stretch to the L version, wanted more than 200m (and for anything long, IS is a *must*. Seriously, once you IS you never go back)

 

The 28-135 almost universally regarded as not a particularly good lens at the long end - it gets a lot of flak for being really quite soft after the 90mm ish. That said, our photographer here has one on his 5D as a walkaround and loves it

 

70-200 f4 is a good lens but you might find it a bit slow in low light conditions. I've used it a fair bit but always outdoors. As it's got L glass you get really good IQ and colour.

The 100 macro is good but macro photography is something that you'll either love or hate. I have the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro which gives a greater working distance (you still get 1:1 macro).

There is no doubting that you'll find a lot of use for the 28-135 but you might not want to spend all that money on something that's not offering something completely new.

 

a few remarks:

-for the wide angle, lots of photographers use the Tokina 12-24. But the Sigma should be about the same in terms of IQ.

-the flash: I use the 430EX and it's great. A bit less powerful than the 580EX, but nothing dramatic really. It's also a bit smaller and lighter.

-the 70-200 f4 is great, I would definitely save up to buy the 70-200 f4 IS though, but hey, that's just me.

-macro is a love/hate thing, the lens you're suggesting is very good.

-the 28-135: I would never buy that one. It's not wide enough, so you would have to take your wide angle with you all the time. I have the 17-55 (and 17-85) for 'every day usage' (the 17-85 as a travel lens) and this is a good reach for most applications; I will probably go to two bodies, one with the 10-22 and the other with the mighty sweet 24-105, or the 17-55 and 70-200 respectively, depending on the situation. But the 17-85 will stay, just because I mostly do active vacations and it's a real drag to be taking two lenses and having to switch them all the time...my point being: when you buy the 28-135, prepare to be confronted with the fact that you will have to take two lenses with you most of the time.

just my 2c

 

Thanks for the advice all. I probably won't be buying from amazon, I just have links sitting around for my blog and all that. I'm a bit surprised about the reaction to the 28-135, but then again that's why I asked. For the 28-105/24-105, which ones exactly do you suggest? Im sure I've seen a few around that range and want to make sure I end up with the right one.

 

Don't want to threadjack here Firehed, but I thought I'd stick this in here rather than make a new thread.

If/When I'm going to get maself a D-SLR, chances are it'll be the last purchase for a while, so I was wondering what's a good all-round lens (that isn't ridiculously priced), assuming of course that the 18-55mm kit one isn't great.

 

Sigma 17-70 is awesome for a lot of stuff, not telephoto obviously. It gives great IQ for the price, insane macro and it's wide enough for most.

 

Nice thread. I'm just using my 350D kit lens (18-55) so it's very nice to hear your considerations.
Buying all those lenses at once sounds unbelievable to my pocket
Also I think I'll buy my lenses as I learn in the fear of not getting most out of what I already own. Plus I hate dragging around a camera bag and lenses and all that.
My next purchase will probably be the Sigma macro lens you mention.

Cheers!

 

No problem

If you're coming from a point+shoot, as it sounds like you are, even the kit lens is quite a large improvement. You'll find MUCH faster autofocusing, and despite a less-than-superb build quality on the thing and a not especially fast aperture, you can still use depth of field to a much greater effect (due almost entirely to the size of the actual sensor in the camera, rather than the change in lens, though you can get an even shallower DOF with faster lenses). Expect to hear a lot of praise for the cheaply built 50mm f/1.8 that has excellent optics, but also expect to hear people say it's a waste. In my experience with one, it's a great starter lens to have for quite a few reasons:
Fast optics - f/1.8 can really let you experiment with depth of field so it's a good learning tool
Inexpensive - If you break it, it's not the end of the world. Can't say the same for the insane $7000+ glass out there.
Non-rotating front (unlike the kit lens, though this is true of most) - lets you play around with a cheap polarizing filter, again for learning/experimenting
Quality optics, especially when stopped down a little bit. Some people say it's on par with some L glass (haven't used an L lens yet, so I can't say).

Checking out B+H right now... I've determined that this is going to be one of the more expensive posts I've made in my history at Bit-tech. I'm starting to lean towards that 70-200 f/4L IS USM (instead of the USM-only) as it'll give me the added telephoto that I've wanted for quite a while, and only not does it have better IS (4-stop vs 2-stop on the 28-135, I think), but it's more valuable with the longer lenses. Which eventually means a bigger camera bag, quite possibly one of those ring-mount tripod thingers, and probably never touching non-L glass again. Damn, looks like I need to ask for a raise.

By the way, who's the official Bit photographer?

Oh lord, no way could I get them all at once. Sure, I've got a bit of disposable income at the moment, but I'm not doing photography professionally which is the only possible way I could even consider trying to justify THAT.

 

The 28 - 135 does get a bad rep, esp getting soft at the long end, like rich says.
The EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 Mk II, although sacrificing a little length is a much better performer, regarded by some as one of the best non L glass lenses made by canon, it's very rarely off my camera now.

 

canon 28-135

The 28 - 135 was the first lens I bought after the kit lens, and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I did look at the 17-85, but I liked the fact that it had a little bit more zoomage in it! For most of the things I can see with my eyes, I can take a picture of it. Also, in comparison to the the 28-105 suggested here it does come with IS, which is always useful IMO, and has helped me take pictures that otherwise I wouldn't have been able to take. esp in low light.

Image Quality might be better with the 28-105, but if you have to resort to using the flash it'll look poop, but then again, it depends on what you're shooting

In other words, I like it, but I've not much else to judge it against

 

What do you mean? The About Page was G-gnome (lots of pro-snapper experience) but in terms of the product shots, they're usually all done by the reviewer themselves. We've just got a l33t studio setup here at the office that flatters even n00bs like me

Your dilemma on long lenses is one that is very familiar to me - I had the same at Christmas time. Here is the range (in pounds sterling - just double for USD (ignores the fact that lenses are often cheaper Stateside). It's the relative that's important)

£345.99 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
£369.99 Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens (non-IS)
£628.99 Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens
£629.99 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens (non-IS)
£997.99 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens
£1189.99 Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens

So you start off with about £350 / $700 to buy a long lens with. You're thinking 70-300 IS. Then you see that you can have L for only a tiny bit more. But then you realise you really need / want IS so you step up to £630. But then that's only f4 and the f2.8 is the same price. Oh wait, but that doesn't have IS so then you move to £1000 for the 70-200 f2.8 IS. And while you're spending silly money maybe you go mad for the 28-300 which is both L and has IS

In reality, I traded L quality for range and IS and got the 70-300 IS. And like I said, once you go IS you NEVER go back. You have NO IDEA how amazing it can be.

I used a 70-200 L briefly at Gumball and the focusing was NINJA. But if I got one of those I'd then want to save up for the 100-400 for the extra length (Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens ) and that's £840.00 on top of the price of the 70-200

It's the kind of hobby where it would be great to win a couple of grand on a scratch card and then just *invest*. Lenses hold their value stupidly well so it's not like splashing £2000 on a plasma that's worth £500 in 2 years.

 

Thanks for the info Geoff, that pretty much summed up my morning. I went from a $550 70-200 f/4L USM to the $1600 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM in the exact manner you just described. Considering it'll go on an XTi/400D, I don't think I'd really need the extra length of the 28-300 or the 100-400 as I've got the 1.6x crop factor (putting me at 320mm equiv with the 200) and I certainly don't want to think about spending that much right now, no matter how well the glass holds its value.

I was mostly referring to Mr. I Didn't Break It's "That said, our photographer here has one on his 5D as a walkaround and loves it" that implied to me that you have someone that just does product shots, although back when I did hardware reviews, I always took my own shots like you guys do.

Anyways, sounds like the original post should upgrade the zoom to the 70-200 f/4L IS USM (just can't justify the f/2.8 upgrade, especially for what I do), and perhaps switch the walkaround to the 28-105 MkII? It's a good bit cheaper than the 28-135 IS USM ($230 vs $400 at Amazon anyways), but the loss of IS is a little bit concerning.

Maybe the 28-105 and the 430EX now since I could really use a decent flash (which would also help with the lack of IS; I'm rarely in a flash not allowed situation), and then eventually go for the 70-200 f/4L IS?

 

Word to the wise, spend more on your flashgun. I do a lot of studio work and location shoots with loads of gear and 2 Elinchrom heads, yet when they're not with me I wish I'd dropped more on my flashgun. I'm saving for a walkaround lens and a 580EX mkII.

 

I was about to post the exact opposite, I have yet to find a real need for an external flash, however, I don't do portrait work or promotional type shots.
The only time I would have liked the external flash was a motorsport shoot in failing light, uping the ISO helped on that occasion but the flash would have been nice.
What I'm saying is spend the money on glass for now, and get a flash later unless your type of shooting requires the flash.

 

Well I guess I'm spoiled having some nice bits of (massive, bulky, heavy and back-breaking) portrait kit to lug around. Yet when I don't have them I sometimes wish I had a bit more light from a better flashgun. But I suppose I'm spoiled with a 5D, which has awesome high ISO performance, too.

 

Maybe I'm a n00b but I failed see a difference really between flashgun and onboard in the shots I took in Beijing.

@Firehead - everyone always carries on about the "oh, but with 1.6 crop it's actually XYZ". I've only ever known crop (my 400d is my first SLR) so I just adjust the scale. So "300mm" to me is 300mm, even though it's *technically* 480mm. All I know is in certain situations 300mm on my 300d ain't enough, so I want 400mm (and that fact that that is "really 640mm" doesn't mean anything to me).

If 200mm @ 320mm is enough for you then cool. Also sleep safe in the knowledge that at $550 that's some $200 than the best sterling price (from Hong Kong)

 

Yeah, I know there's something to be said for only knowing the 1.6x cameras, but all I've used so far is a 55mm lens at greatest, the kit one, so going out to 200mm is a huge improvement for me regardless. In fact, I'd say the biggest impact of the crop factor for me is that I can't go as wide as I'd like to on some situations.

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure if a flash would be the best investment at this point. Generally where I need one such as product shots, I'm in a fairly controlled environment as far as lighting is concerned. When I'm shooting outdoors, I'm almost always doing so in daylight where an external flash isn't too necessary.