Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Advise: 30D Lens Arsenal  (Read 2406 times)
Emersonp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« on: March 12, 2006, 10:29:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Good Day Everyone!

I would like to get your MUCH Needed advise on the lens I should get with the new 30D. I plan to shoot landscapes, portraits, macros, and sports (maybe some big Animal wildlife, but not too often) Here's my thoughts:

Option 1: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, EF-S 60mm f/2.8, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Option 2: EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF-S 60mm f/2.8, EF 70/-200 f/2.8L IS

Question 1: Am I going to miss a lot between 35-60 in option 1 or is it negligible?
Question 2: Is 55-60-70mm (in option 2) too close in range to be of maximum benefit to me?
Question 3: Do you think I'm going to miss something between 55-70, if I got the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro instead of the EFS-60mm f/2.8?
Question 4: Is there a point in getting a 100mm Macro in a 30D, considering that the sensor is not as big and I wouldn't get full coverage on my shots? Should I just stick with the EFS-60mm and get full coverage on my shots?
Question 5: Is 60mm to close to be successfull at taking pictures of insects? Will I just be scaring them off?
Question 6: Is it true that "L" Lenses are more "weather-proof?" I understand that no  equipment can withstand neglectful abuse. I figure that if I'm going to invest on a high-priced item, I might as well ensure that it'll perform and last a long time ( like getting a Toyota vs a Ford or GM).

Note: I'm finally making the leap from Point&Shoot to DSLR. I don't think I'll ever have plans of  getting a better body than a 30D in the distant future. IF money was not an issue, which lens combos do you ladies/gentlemen recommend?

Please help. I'm starting to get really bogged down with the details.  

Best,

Emerson
« Last Edit: March 12, 2006, 10:32:26 AM by Emersonp » Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 783


« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2006, 01:57:03 PM »
ReplyReply

In your budgetary range, I'd lean towards a 16-35mm f/2.8 L, a 50mm f/1.4 (for portraits and lower light), a 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. The EF-S lenses are ok, but ultimately will not hold their value as well as the full frame lenses. Also, I think it's wise to invest in glass that will be useable on a full frame body. You may not want to upgrade now, but in a couple years when full frame 13 megapixel digital can be had for under $1500-$2k, it will be a different story.  

If I had an unlimited budget to add to the above? I'd add a 24-105mm f/4 L IS, a 35mm f/1.4 L, a 85mm f/1.2 L, and a 300mm f/4 L IS, in that order of priority.

Hope this helps!

Sheldon
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 783


« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2006, 02:06:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess I didn't really answer your questions...

1. Maybe a little bit, 35 to 50mm is not as bad of a gap, but either is workable.

2. No, there's no such thing as "too close" in varying focal lengths. Each lens has a purpose or useable range, and it's ok if they overlap.

3. Not really, but again I'd choose EF over EF-S lenses.

4. Yes, having a full frame lens is totally fine. With an EF lens you can add a film body for very cheap if you want to experiment. The extra coverage is not any detriment to a 1.6 crop body, and in fact the 1.6 crop uses the best part of the lens, so it's actually an advantage. In the case of the 60mm and 100mm, both are equally excellent optically, so it's more a question of focal length, working distance, how well it will hold its value, and whether it is useable on film or full frame digital.

5. Yes, you will find the extra "reach" of the 100mm lens a very handy thing when taking pictures of anything skittish.

6. Build quality on L lenses is better than on consumer grade lenses. Some are weather sealed, but the 30D body is not officially weather sealed, so it's not truly water proof. The body is capable of handling a little rain, as long as it doesn't get soaked. Yes, it's worth it to buy L lenses.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2006, 02:26:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, but the 16-35 is a more limited lens than the 17-55 IS on the 30D.  (No one outside of canon knows about the optics yet.  But the claim is that they are supposed to be very good.)  I wouldn't limit myself now just because I might do something in the future.  Of course if the goal is to eventually go FF I would recommend not buying the 30D at all.

For the 30D I'd go with the second option.

q1: I wouldn't worry about small gaps in your lens lineup.  Your feet or cropping can usually save you there.

q2: The 60 has its own purpose.  When you need a macro (or just a very sharp lens) you'll pull it out.  Don't worry about the range.  However, working distance helps with macro photography.  (critters perfer to not have a lens 1 inch from them.)  So something like the cannon 100mm or a tamron (or sigma) 150 (or is it 180?) macro.

q3: Probably not.  Review your exif from your point and shoot.  See if you live in that range.

q4: Working distance.  The 100 lets you sit farther away from the subject.

q5: For buggery I'd go with a 100 or one of the longer lenses.

q6: Yes.  They are typically weather sealed.  Your 30D is not.
Logged
roli_bark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2006, 11:29:00 AM »
ReplyReply

The OP main dilemma is whether ot not to buy the new EF-S 17-55 f/2.8
I'd say - wait with this focal length for a couple of months until user's reports show up. If you can't wait - than your other choice (16-35 L) seems most feasible, also for the sake of a potential, far distant, FF body.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad