|
I'm in the market to buy my first lens. I currently have my kit lens which I rarely use and have been using a friends extra 50mm lens which she said I can borrow for a while. SO, I'm looking at getting a 35mm and a macro. I was hoping to get advice on which lens to buy. I'm looking at 2 different lenses that I would like to buy: a 35mm and a macro. Just for reference, I mostly take pictures of food for my blog and people. I'm looking at these macros: Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens for Canon SLR Cameras- which I can get used on amazon for $200 (is it a bad idea to buy used on amazon!?) Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Len- $268 new on amazon Any advice on these lenses and what I should order?
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
What are you shooting? I'm assuming something full frame?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
If Maris has a crop I'd recommend the 60mm 2.8 macro for food photography, the 60mm has better magnification and USM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Is ~200-250 basically your budget? I ask only because for a couple hundred more you can get a used Canon 100mm f2.8 USM macro and it is one of the best lenses Canon makes. Its as sharp as any L and it doubles as an excellent telephoto portrait lens. The other macro lens that people around here recommend is the Tamron 90mm f2.8. I realize that neither of these were the ones you were asking about but I think they would be better options if you can swing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Is ~200-250 basically your budget? I ask only because for a couple hundred more you can get a used Canon 100mm f2.8 USM macro and it is one of the best lenses Canon makes. Its as sharp as any L and it doubles as an excellent telephoto portrait lens. The other macro lens that people around here recommend is the Tamron 90mm f2.8. I realize that neither of these were the ones you were asking about but I think they would be better options if you can swing it. And if on crop, the EF-S 60/2.8 is similarly fantastic, and < 400 used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
If they're on a crop I'd recommend the Sigma 30/1.4 for carry around and the Tamron 60/2 Macro for portrait/foodie stuff. Both can be had used for ~$300 and are pretty stellar in their respective categories.
Whirlwind Jones fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I just saw what Canon did here. They essentially made the only good and worthwhile upgrade in 4 years in their product line to hit the bottom segment. Congratulations to all the T3 owners, Canon loves you! All of us previous owners of whatever product in pro-sumer segment (which I just made to be including everyone from T3i and up) haven't received a good enough upgrade and Canon have been laughing all the way to the bank when some of us upgraded to 70D or T5i. And to mock us even further the only "good enough" upgrade is made in this segment. As always, if anyone can Canon can. erephus fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
erephus posted:I just saw what Canon did here. The secret is waiting a while before you upgrade. I shot my 10D for a decade, and the 70D is like a magical fountain of technology to me because of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The secret is waiting a while before you upgrade. I shot my 10D for a decade, and the 70D is like a magical fountain of technology to me because of it. I am a bit a naive. And I believe that the 60D was as much of an "meh" upgrade as well when that model was released. But comparing to the upgrades other have made to their line-up Canon have quite a bunch of stagnancy in their technology advancements. I have been comparing and looking too much at Pentax, but to compare their upgrade from K-5II to K-3 there is a bigger advancement and motivation for an upgrade just one generation apart, for those that upgrades just to upgrade to the new "hot thing". I as a Canon user have to wait two(three ?) generations before upgrading. I like my 60D, so there is no problem with how I feel there. And moving from a 10 year old compact I am in a magical fountain myself. If no one would like my photos I do not have the flashy new technology as a last resort to blind their eyes with, leaving me with nothing even if I would have upgraded to the latest. I am just being overly sarcastic and ranting about Canon for a period now, I need to get out and take pictures in good weather. erephus fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
erephus posted:I just saw what Canon did here. I shoot with a T3i now and I basically have no reason to upgrade unless I'm going to go to a 5d3 or a 6D. I don't care about the new crop bodies at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:I don't care about the new crop bodies at all. Canon doesn't either so you're in good company there
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
erephus posted:I am a bit a naive. And I believe that the 60D was as much of an "meh" upgrade as well when that model was released. I get it - I looked at where Nikon is last year when I went to upgrade, and it kinda made me say drat, but I have a giant pile of canon poo poo that has been accumulating in my life since 1994, and I just don't have it in me to just start over. I figure they'll do something amazing eventually, for now I'm happy enough. Having a toddler, the AF upgrade alone made the 70D worth enough to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:I shoot with a T3i now and I basically have no reason to upgrade unless I'm going to go to a 5d3 or a 6D. I don't care about the new crop bodies at all. I went T3i > 5Dc, then decided I did in fact miss video and went 5D3.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Canon doesn't either so you're in good company there  Fuji looks so tempting sometimes.e: Mightaswell posted:I went T3i > 5Dc, then decided I did in fact miss video and went 5D3. Did you see an improvement in IQ going from T3i to 5Dc? I would have figured that you wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:I shoot with a T3i now and I basically have no reason to upgrade unless I'm going to go to a 5d3 or a 6D. I don't care about the new crop bodies at all. Right there with you, I've been saying the same thing (except I'm on a 50D). I just saw a deal at Adorama today for a 5d3, 24-105, and Pro 100 printer for $3200 and I'm thinking about making the painful financial jump. I think if I hawk all my crop gear (50D, Tamron 17-50, and Sigma 8-16) that will knock the cost down to about $2100. If I want to regain my 2.8 abilities in the 24-70 range, I could probably hawk the included 24-105 for at least $600 and put it towards a $2000 24-70. That would put me at $3500 and without an ultra-wide. I love my Sigma 8-16, but I don't know if I want to replace it with a 12-24. I'm not sure if it's any good and if it'll hold it's own with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II. I feel like I never use my Tamron 17-50 because it looks like poo poo compared to my 70-200 and 8-16. Probably better just to do without and save that money burning for next year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:
Oh my god yes (IMO). Colors, noise (yes all the way up to 3200) were better than the t3i. T3i had more megapixels but I never really noticed. The other feature I really missed was auto ISO. And now that I have a 5D3 I miss the interchangeable screen of the 5Dc haha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Oh my god yes (IMO). Colors, noise (yes all the way up to 3200) were better than the t3i. T3i had more megapixels but I never really noticed. Huh, good to know. I'm probably gonna end up getting a 6D, but if I ever come across a Crazy Gideon price on a 5Dc I might buy it for kicks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I can't speak but for what I've read in my own research, but I've seen a few places call a "typical" pro kit the 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8. Pfft, a real pro would also have a 200-500/2.8 in their kit to cover the long end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Pfft, a real pro would also have a 200-500/2.8 in their kit to cover the long end. Nobody leaves home without their 1200/5.6 ready to rock
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:
I'm almost definitely going to grab an xt 1. Not going to ditch my t4i just yet, but my nex c3 is definitely getting sold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
I have a T1i and I'm about to meet a guy on Saturday to buy his 7D (+ CF card) for a little over CAD$700 so I can do bird photography with more likelihood of getting birds in flight in focus and with better ISO performance and image quality. Great plan or terrible plan? E: I have the 100-400 L lens already. One Swell Foop fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
One Swell Foop posted:I have a T1i and I'm about to meet a guy on Saturday to buy his 7D (+ CF card) for a little over CAD$700 so I can do bird photography with more likelihood of getting birds in flight in focus and with better ISO performance and image quality. Great plan or terrible plan?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
One Swell Foop posted:I have a T1i and I'm about to meet a guy on Saturday to buy his 7D (+ CF card) for a little over CAD$700 so I can do bird photography with more likelihood of getting birds in flight in focus and with better ISO performance and image quality. Great plan or terrible plan? Yeah, 700 is a good price for that camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Thanks to those recommending the 6D a few pages ago, finally bit the bullet and made the jump from my 550D today. This thing is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
One Swell Foop posted:I have a T1i and I'm about to meet a guy on Saturday to buy his 7D (+ CF card) for a little over CAD$700 so I can do bird photography with more likelihood of getting birds in flight in focus and with better ISO performance and image quality. Great plan or terrible plan? Love my 100-400. I endorse this plan  
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Speaking of the 100-400L, I'm looking for a good super-tele, and I've come down to that or the tamron 150-600. The canon is $1000 more than the tamron, and pretty much every review I've read has shown that the tamron is as good as the 100-400L in the focal length ranges they share, while beating out the 200-500 and the equivalent sigma 50-500 (or whatever it was). Given that, and the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I'm tending towards the tamron, but I wanted some impressions from anyone who might have used each of them. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
megalodong posted:Speaking of the 100-400L, I'm looking for a good super-tele, and I've come down to that or the tamron 150-600. The canon is only like 5 hundred more, but EX rated ones on KEH go for 8-900$ just FYI. With that said, I've never used the Tamron as it's brand new and I've had my 100-400 for a while - the reviews all show the IQ to be excellent so that isn't in question. I did own the bigma once upon a time, and it weighs about the same as the Tamron (4.3 lbs vs 3 for the canon 100-400) - that extra 1.3 lb was a big deal to me, and sealed the fate of the bigma vs the 100-400. If you're gonna be holding it up for long periods of time, it can start to make a big difference, or at least it did for me - YMMV. What's the heaviest lens you've shot with prior to now? It might be worth you going to try both of them out and see how you feel about the size difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The canon is only like 5 hundred more, but EX rated ones on KEH go for 8-900$ just FYI. Heaviest is my 24-105 at 600-700g or so. I live in New Zealand though, so places like KEH are a no-show unless I want no warranty, and I also live in a town where the chances of me actually being able to try one let alone both of them out is nearly non-existant. That's also why there's a $1k price difference. $1500 for the tamron, $2500 for the canon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
megalodong posted:Heaviest is my 24-105 at 600-700g or so. I live in New Zealand though, so places like KEH are a no-show unless I want no warranty, and I also live in a town where the chances of me actually being able to try one let alone both of them out is nearly non-existant. Jeez, Canon is ripping you guys off. That's almost 2000USD, they go for 1560USD on amazon here. I think you'll be happy with the images out of either lens, it's just the weight that makes me know I won't be trading my 100-400 in anytime soon. YMMV - obviously there's tons of people who don't mind a 4+ lb lens at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
megalodong posted:Speaking of the 100-400L, I'm looking for a good super-tele, and I've come down to that or the tamron 150-600. I would lean toward the tammy as well. The reviews are stellar considering the price and the extra reach is invaluable. There might be some issue with af servo on some canon cameras though? There has been some grumbling on photo forums. Might be fud, might be real. If you get one of those, buy from a seller with a good return policy just in case. If you decide on the Canon 100-400, be aware that a new version is expected to be announced in the next few months. That could drive prices up as people anticipate a much more expensive replacement. Regarding weight: I haul around a 300mm 2.8 non-IS on a 1 series. You get used to it. Work out bro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
I have 24mm to 800mm entirely covered in 8.5lbs. Eat it nerds. Oh god they need to release the 11-24.' Edit: Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with being prepared for literally any shot. I have no idea what you guys are so upset about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
I think I have gear acquisition syndrome. I can't get the though of a WA L prime out of my head, and I'm constantly looking at reviews for the 24L or the 35L. Even though I have both FLs covered in the 24-70L. Am I insane?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:I think I have gear acquisition syndrome. I can't get the though of a WA L prime out of my head, and I'm constantly looking at reviews for the 24L or the 35L. Even though I have both FLs covered in the 24-70L. Am I insane? No, the 35L is really a special lens. I loved mine a lot when I had it, pretty much the only lens I ever used on my 5D2. The Sigma 35/1.4 is supposed to be better, if you don't mind non-Canon lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I would lean toward the tammy as well. The reviews are stellar considering the price and the extra reach is invaluable. There might be some issue with af servo on some canon cameras though? There has been some grumbling on photo forums. Might be fud, might be real. If you get one of those, buy from a seller with a good return policy just in case. If you decide on the Canon 100-400, be aware that a new version is expected to be announced in the next few months. That could drive prices up as people anticipate a much more expensive replacement. I feel shame and weakness. I never minded lugging the bigma around, it was just holding it up to my face for stretches of time that I thought sucked - but I only do that once every few weeks, not daily. The extra 100mm wasn't worth it to me (plus I'm the weirdo who actually likes the pump zoom action)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Lenses like that should really be on tripods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Lenses like that should really be on tripods. That's exactly why I like the 100-400 so much - it's the perfect weight to handhold comfortably for decent stretches of time, and not require a tripod. Any heavier and it just starts to feel like a chore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Lenses like that should really be on tripods. Nah. Can't track birds in flight or respond quick enough if something unexpected shows up. Its way more of a pain in the rear end to cart a tripod around than its worth most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Does anyone who bought a 6D regret not going with a 5D3? The biggest difference I can see is the better AF, but I do fine with the 50D's AF so I'm sure I'll be ok with the 6D. I would really like the 100% viewfinder (I hate having to crop) but I don't think that's worth $1000 more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Less than 100% viewfinders are great. They've saved me a few times when I've been like: "Oh no! I cut off a foot or hand in the frame!" And it turns out that I didn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:08
|
|
