Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

What would you do?

Displaying 1 to 17 of 17 matches.
swalls
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Feb 5, 2005 10:17PM
I'm getting a nice tax refund this year. I can afford to buy either a nice light setup and medium quality lens or a great L series canon lens and an inexpensive light setup. It's mostly food photography I'm needing lights for. I enjoy taking nature shots especially vineyards. Do you think an L series lens is worth it to an amature? I read that they are about the best you can get and take fantastic photos. Do you think I would be jumping the gun purchasing an expnsive lens like this, or would it be something that would be of great use for years to come. Thanks for any advise.
wolv
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Feb 5, 2005 11:02PM
Which L lens were you thinking about getting?

You might possibly be able to get a decent lens and some good lighting also.

There are some 3rd party lenses that are much cheaper and of the same optical quality as certain Canon L glass.

An example is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 at $1140.00 compared to a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 at $370.00 They are both of the same optical quality according to tests and reviews.

There are other 3rd party lens that compare to some Canon L glass besides the above example.
swalls
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Feb 5, 2005 11:57PM
Wow. That would be great to get some kick ass glass at 1/3 the price. I have the Canon EF 50mm macro f/2.8 and it does a very good job. I need a good wide angle and it would be nice to have a telephoto also. Although I would use a good wide to close zoom the most. I was looking at the Canon 35-350 and the 16-35 and couldn't make up my mind. If I could get both for around $1000 in the Tamron line that would be a great range,
16-350mm. Are all of the Tamron top of the line or do they also have a series like the Canon L?
wolv
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 12:38AM
The Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 ($470) has ratings and reviews comparable to the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 ($1300). I'm not to familiar with the Tamron telephoto zooms.

Tamron doesn't have a series like Canon's "L", but some of thier glass is pretty close to the "L" and less expensive.

The (Bigma) Sigma 50-500 ($990) is a very sharp lens with good ratings and reviews. It is built like a sherman tank and weighs about the same. I carry mine around on the end of a mono pod so I can sling it over my shoulder when walking around.

Your best bang for the buck in Canon L glass is the 70-200 f4 at $580. With a 1.4x teleconverter it would give you 280mm of sharp optics.
bonniej
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 8:51AM
I would never skimp on the quality of the lens.

There are many people here that are getting great shots with enxpensive lights... you can aways "play" with the lighting.

But you can never regain what is lost due to bad glass.

thats my 2 cents worth.

(Edited on 2005-02-06 02:19:04 by bonniej)
kickstand
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 1:29PM
You don't give us exact figures, but I think the Canon 17-40 f/4 L is a good deal at under $700US.

As for lights, you can start with one Alien Bees B800 and unbrella for around $500US.

I would think you would need both a good lens and a strobe to do food photography. I don't think most food would hold up to hot lights, you'd cook yourself dinner by the time you were done.
swalls
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 4:30PM
The 50mm Macro EF f/2.8 does a good job with food. I do need better lighting. The 17-40 would be a good wide angle. I was told that when you put a lens on a digital camera that is not made for digital, it doubles the magnification. Is this true?
wolv
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:56PM
It depends on the camera model and varies from no crop factor to 2x

Examples:

Canon - 300D, 10D, 20D = 1.6x crop factor
Canon - 1D MK II = 1.3x
Canon - 1Ds Mk II = no crop factor
Some Nikons = 1.5x
Some Olympus = 2x

MacphersonPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 8:06PM
But it doesn't really alter the magnification. It just gives the narrower field of view of a longer lens.
swalls
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 8:33PM
So a 17-40 would still be a good wide angle for the Canon Rebel?
wolv
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 10:21PM
It would be equivalent to a 27-64mm on a 35mm SLR.
swalls
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Feb 6, 2005 11:23PM
That's not too bad. The kit lense that came with my film Canon Rebel was a 28-80. It was pretty useful for general photography. I doubt there is anything that would make a wider angle lens for the RebleD.
MacphersonPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 3:16AM
I've got the 17-40 f/4 L for my 10D (same crop factor as the Rebel) and it's a very nice lens. Reasonably wide, too.
QShot
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:49AM
If you need to go wide, there is the EF-S 10-22 for the rebel, but because it is an EF-S lens (like the kit lens) you won't be able to keep it if you upgrade to anything other than the 20D at this time.

The 10-22 will give you the equivelent of 16-35 on a DRebel.
The 17-40 will give you the equivelent of 27-64 on a DRebel.

I have the 17-40 and can testify to its quality. I don't have the 10-22 so can't comment on the quality, other than I have seen some very good reviews.

kickstand
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:09AM

So a 17-40 would still be a good wide angle for the Canon Rebel?


The way I see it, a 17-40 would be a good general lens for the Canon Digital Rebel.

The 10-22 would be my choice for a wide lens.
zeiler1
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 12:55PM
the 10-22 is the newest lens in my arsenal for my rebeld, I lightboxed some images from my 10-22 here. although the price was not to friendly I think it is worth the price. I plan to use this lens to shoot a whole pile od landscape photography and therefore is my new fave. I cannot comment on other applications though.
swalls
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Tue Feb 8, 2005 2:08AM
Thanks to all who resonded to this post. I just bought the Canon "L" Series 17-40mm lens. I also bought the Wacom Intus3 4x5 Graphics Tablet. Wow! What fun.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 17 of 17 matches.
Not a member?Join