Critique my lens Wish List please :)

[Fedaykin]

I want to get the most bang for my buck as I am a student and don't have a lot of money, but I've started photography and am quite enthusiastic about it.

For the moment I am assisting my sister shooting some weddings alongside her(she runs a wedding photography business with her husband), I've done 3 so far. And of course a little bit of everything on my own. I've decided on primes mostly as they seem to offer the best value for my money in terms of sharpness/IQ/color/etc. To get the same on zooms I would have to dish out more money than I care to at once.

Note: Realistically speaking I'd say I can get all this in about 3 years, depending on what happens from now till then(read: if I get a better job).

I'd really appreciate any comments, the last thing I want to do is waste my money, what little I have of it.

Here it is:

-Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6
-Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
-Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
-Canon EF 28mm f/1.8
-Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (non-IS)
-Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (non-IS)
-Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L

I'd say the first four are obtainable before Fall of next year, I doubt I could wait more than that. The others are of course much more costly than those, so I'd say those are for 2012.

What do you think?

 

[Misfitlimp]

Primes yes, Macros yes. The 17 thru 200 lenses need to be F2.8 and the 55-250 is useless.

 

[Fedaykin]

Primes yes, Macros yes. The 17 thru 200 lenses need to be F2.8 and the 55-250 is useless.

I'd love them to be 2.8, but I don't have that kind of money. I am considering skipping the 17-40 and getting the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 though, making it 2.8 and cheaper too, which means I could get it earlier. I am getting the 55-250 as I have a little trip coming up where the focal length will be quite useful but I can't afford the 70-200 f/4L right now, much less the 2.8.

Would it be better to skip the 35mm f/2 and just get the 28mm 1.8 and upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4 instead?

 

[Misfitlimp]

consider buying used. I got my 70-200 f2.8 for what they sell the F4s new. just make sure you go through it well if you buy from craigslist and i know bhphoto and adorama sell used or refurbished stuff that I would buy also.

 

[Fedaykin]

consider buying used. I got my 70-200 f2.8 for what they sell the F4s new. just make sure you go through it well if you buy from craigslist and i know bhphoto and adorama sell used or refurbished stuff that I would buy also.

Hmm, that is an option yes, I'm just really anal about buying used. But yes I guess it may be worth it.

 

[Misfitlimp]

dont worry about buying used. Like I said I love my used lens it works great and like I said make sure you have a good looksie at it before you buy. Make sure their arent any nicks or dings that would indicate drops. Hook it up to your body and go thru all the stops and make sure the auto focus works and most of all make sure the manual focus isnt sticking or rough throughout the focal lengths and you should be fine. O and look out for dust and scratches on the front glass.

 

[Fedaykin]

dont worry about buying used. Like I said I love my used lens it works great and like I said make sure you have a good looksie at it before you buy. Make sure their arent any nicks or dings that would indicate drops. Hook it up to your body and go thru all the stops and make sure the auto focus works and most of all make sure the manual focus isnt sticking or rough throughout the focal lengths and you should be fine. O and look out for dust and scratches on the front glass.

Thanks, though I live in Puerto Rico and there's not really a market here for used camera gear, so I'd have to buy used on say B&H, Adorama, or KEH.

 

[Misfitlimp]

Yeah the only downside to buying from them used is that the prices are a lot higher and non-negotiable. Which is a minus because sometimes you can get lucky and find someone who just wants to get rid of a nice lens quick on craigslist and score a nice deal or offer a little less than the asking price. but im going to be honest with you. L glass is an addiction my friend once you start you will wonder how you ever got along without them.

 

[Fedaykin]

L glass is an addiction my friend once you start you will wonder how you ever got along without them.

I can imagine.

 

[Fedaykin]

After posting this elsewhere and thinking hard about it, I've changed it a little:

-Canon 85mm 1.8
-Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
-Sigma 30mm f/1.4
-Canon 70-200 f/4L
-Canon 50mm f/1.4(upgrade my 1.8 )
-Instead of getting the 100 Macro, I'd get a set of Kenko extension tubes ans use it with my 50mm. The 100mm's versatility as a portrait lens wouldn't make sense(aka waste of money) since I'd already have the 85 and 70-200.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I just saw your thread on the other forum lol

I'd skip the primes... Here is what I'd get (all used, of course):
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($400)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS ($1300)
Canon 1.4x extender ($200)
Canon EF 25 extension tube ($100)

If you feel you must have a prime in there, I'd get the 50mm f/1.4... it's the most useful length for a prime on a 1.6 crop and f/1.4 is pretty stinkin boss.

 

[Fedaykin]

I just saw your thread on the other forum lol

I'd skip the primes... Here is what I'd get (all used, of course):
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($400)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS ($1300)
Canon 1.4x extender ($200)
Canon EF 25 extension tube ($100)

If you feel you must have a prime in there, I'd get the 50mm f/1.4... it's the most useful length for a prime on a 1.6 crop and f/1.4 is pretty stinkin boss.

Well, I am getting the 17-50 and 70-200 F/4($1,300 for the 2.8 is way out of my budget) and the Kenko extension tubes. don't plan on getting the 1.4 extender, but if I feel I want more reach that'd be my choice. I already have the 50mm 1.8, and want to upgrade to the 1.4 at some point. I mainly want the 85 and 30 for their speed, after using my sister's 85 and 35 I was hooked, so sharp too.

 

[Derrel]

I think I'd skip the 17-40 f/4 and get the 17-50 Tamron f/2.8 instead--so your thought on that decision makes a lot of sense. 17 to 40mm at f/4 is not nearly as useful as 17 to 50mm at f/2.8. Instead of the 35mm f/2, I think I'd be tempted to get the 28mm f/1.8 as a more useful option on a 1.6x body. The 100mm f/2.8 macro is a nice lens, built pretty solid.

 

[Fedaykin]

I think I'd skip the 17-40 f/4 and get the 17-50 Tamron f/2.8 instead--so your thought on that decision makes a lot of sense. 17 to 40mm at f/4 is not nearly as useful as 17 to 50mm at f/2.8. Instead of the 35mm f/2, I think I'd be tempted to get the 28mm f/1.8 as a more useful option on a 1.6x body. The 100mm f/2.8 macro is a nice lens, built pretty solid.

Thanks for the feedback Derrel. Yes I think I am getting the Tamron 17-50. Probably gonna get the Sigma 30mm 1.4 instead of the Canon 28 or 35, though I just looked at the three of them compared in the-digital-picture.com and the Sigma isn't as sharp as the Canons... . I'd still love the 100 2.8, but I've decided to just get the extension tubes for Macro for now.