help me spend money

[ryyback]

"help me spend money"

I can help spend money-:mrgreen:

 

[Garbz]

Ummm if you are buying a ring flash for these purposes then why is the low-light even a concern. I fail to see why you would need to spend all that extra money on a 30D body when a 400D with a reasonably good macro lens and a ring flash will give you significantly better quality images of people's teeth then you will ever need. You could spend the savings on a wide angle zoom lens for travelling

Also www.photozone.de carries technical reviews of many lenses. Just click on everyone marked macro and compare them.

 

[Alex_B]

Out of all the cameras I've held, I cant think of a single one that felt "right" - they all felt the same, or didn't have any kind of ergonomic advantage that would make me consider that over each individual cameras performance, which while they all may indeed snap pictures - some do some things better than others. The OP's only insight as to why he picked the Canon is due to its "feel" - so I, in my opinion, would only caution to him/her to wider those parameters beyond that.

Well, if you include ergonomics in "feel" then it is very important. If my camera would not have all its buttons and wheels in the place they are, I would not be able to operate it as confident as I do now. My camera has things just arranged in the best way for me ... will be different for others.

I do shoot better with a camera that feels better. This is a fact. So it is equally important for me as the technical aspects.

 

[Alex_B]

Actually, if you trust someone with such a low post count snatch up this L series imediately, you can get AMAZING photos from Canon's L glass.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88857

(she's selling it for only $500)

amazon is selling it for $675:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-17-40mm-Ultra-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WO

With respect to the lense's performance, even the Amazon price is a bargain.

Regarding third party lenses or Canon lenses, from my personal experience for non-L glass there are often good alternatives from Sigma, Tamron, and the like. Often cheaper. But for L glass you often have no equivalent from those companies.

 

[chado]

Thanks for all the input. I have have been doing a ton of reading and I am almost ready to pull the trigger (I have to order on Monday). This is what I have decided so far.

1. canon 30d - body only
2. canon MR-14 ex ring flash
3. canon ef 100mm f/2.8 macro USM lens

I want one more lens for my non macro shooting and I have narrowed it down between the two: I like shooting a lot of scenery shots when on vacation. I have no problem buying a third lens in the future either, but that wont be for a while.

canon ef 17-40mm f/4L USM lens OR canon ef-s 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens

Thanks again for all your help.

 

[Alex_B]

canon ef 17-40mm f/4L USM lens OR canon ef-s 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens

For most scenery shots the 17-40 is perfect. Not having IS here does not matter since it is a rather short lens.

But if you decide for this one, you might want a telephoto later. Without it you might lose some chances on wildlife that might cross your path, or details you cannot get close to (in architectural photography for example).

A 75- 200 f/4 or f/2.8 (both L) would be a good choice then. Or a 300 f/4 or f/2.8 (also both L). Things will get a bit expensive then. It really depends on your purse. Also the f/2.8 telephotos are quite bulky and heavy.

 

[The_Traveler]

If you are doing intraoral shots, you really need to consider whether the 100 mm macro might be too long for you. It's been a while since I did intra-oral stuff but the distance away from the patient might be crucial - especially when doing full-face shots.