How to spend $1800?????

Hardrock

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
1,173
Reaction score
36
Location
Dallas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
So my equipment list is: Canon XT, 50mmf1.4, 100mmf2.8 macro, kit 18-55, 75-300mm cheapo, and 430exII. I mostly take family portraits, macro shots , landscapes and, animal shots. So basically all sorts of different shots.

My question is what is the best way to spend the money out of these options? I realize the are all totally different but what would you get with this list of equipment and these options?

I would like a new camera body for better cropping in and to check focus for macro work, and possibly a little better higher iso performance. I have thought about the 40d but would rather get the 50d.

1. 50D and 17-40 f4 L
2. 70-200 is usm f2.8L
3. 100-400 f4.5-5.6L

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Normally I say Lens > Body. But it seems you have enough to fit your macro needs. Are you happy with the lenses?

I say 50D!! :thumbup:

But after the 50D you will have around 800$ To spend, I say get yourself a nice lens but since im a big Nikon user I cant suggest which one exactly.

I see you have two telephotos and one wide angle on your to buy list. What are you looking to shoot?
 
Normally I say Lens > Body. But it seems you have enough to fit your macro needs. Are you happy with the lenses?

I say 50D!! :thumbup:

But after the 50D you will have around 800$ To spend, I say get yourself a nice lens but since im a big Nikon user I cant suggest which one exactly.

I see you have two telephotos and one wide angle on your to buy list. What are you looking to shoot?


Eventually I plan on buying all that is listed its just to much all at once, I need a good wide angle (I know its not as wide on a crop body), and some nice medium to long telephoto lens. I really like to shoot it all , landscape, portraits, macro, and animals.
 
hmm I'd say look at the 70-200mm f2.8 or the 100-400mm lenses as options instead of a better camera body -because even with a better body you will still have the cheap 70-300mm lens to use. Further the 50S is very demanding on glass - if you use cheap glass on it you might well get worse results than on a lower end body (since the sensor starts to show up more lens errors in the 50D).
I moved from a cheap sigma 70-300mm lens to a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L and the difference was amazing - stick a 1.4TC on and you won't miss the 70-300mm at all.
 
hmm I'd say look at the 70-200mm f2.8 or the 100-400mm lenses as options instead of a better camera body -because even with a better body you will still have the cheap 70-300mm lens to use. Further the 50S is very demanding on glass - if you use cheap glass on it you might well get worse results than on a lower end body (since the sensor starts to show up more lens errors in the 50D).
I moved from a cheap sigma 70-300mm lens to a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L and the difference was amazing - stick a 1.4TC on and you won't miss the 70-300mm at all.
I need to do this too, this sigma is killing me, but yes, very nice commentary.
 
get the lens (70-200) it keeps its value whereas a Body comes and goes!!!! so go with the 70-200 all the way! then you can save and get the next best camera body that comes out later
 
hmm I'd say look at the 70-200mm f2.8 or the 100-400mm lenses as options instead of a better camera body -because even with a better body you will still have the cheap 70-300mm lens to use. Further the 50S is very demanding on glass - if you use cheap glass on it you might well get worse results than on a lower end body (since the sensor starts to show up more lens errors in the 50D).
I moved from a cheap sigma 70-300mm lens to a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L and the difference was amazing - stick a 1.4TC on and you won't miss the 70-300mm at all.

Thanks for advice!
 
Just one more point - but for an interest in wildife understand that the 70-200mm is not a wildlife lens on its own - its a complimentary lens - the sort that would be teamed with something like a 300mm or 400mm (or longer) prime lens as well - since 290mm (70-200mm+1.4TC at the long end) is not long enough (much of hte time) for wildlife work and a longer lens is idealy needed.
The 100-400 does the job of all in one wildlife lens far better - infact the only other lens that does "all in one" wildlife which is popular is the 300mm f2.8 (with teleconverters) - but that is a major price jump
 
Just one more point - but for an interest in wildife understand that the 70-200mm is not a wildlife lens on its own - its a complimentary lens - the sort that would be teamed with something like a 300mm or 400mm (or longer) prime lens as well - since 290mm (70-200mm+1.4TC at the long end) is not long enough (much of hte time) for wildlife work and a longer lens is idealy needed.
The 100-400 does the job of all in one wildlife lens far better - infact the only other lens that does "all in one" wildlife which is popular is the 300mm f2.8 (with teleconverters) - but that is a major price jump

Yeah , now Im really torn! I really want a new body and walk around lens. But I also would love to have either one of the other lens. I do think I would use the 70-200 more than the 100-400.
 
Go for the glass go for the glass :)
Here an example: Juza Nature Photography

1DMIII, 20D and XT (350D) - the key part is not the camera body its the photographer and the lens used that make the bigger overall difference. I am most certainly not saying that better camera bodies are not worth getting at all, but what I am saying is that I would upgrade my lenses long before upgrading my camera body.
Besides really good glass (L grade or similar) will last you decades of good use provided you treat it well enough - whilst a camera body dates far quicker
 
Hopefully going to the local camera store tomorrow to make my purchase. Any last thoughts??
 

Most reactions

Back
Top