Moving to India

[adhocphotographer]

Long story short; I’m getting married at the start of August and moving to Bangalore, India (for the next couple of years) at the end of August. Camera gear is actually more expensive (from what i have found, PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong) in India than here in Europe (not to mention the US) and apparently import tax is a bit of a bugger too. I can mentally and financially justify buying a single new lens before we go, and i’m torn between which to get. The weakest part of my set-up is at the longer end (55-250) and would like to replace it with either the 70-300L, 70-200L is 2.8 II or the 100-400L.

Regarding my photo style, I’m a bit of a Jack of all trades, master of none. I enjoy all photography; travel, street, landscape, strobist, portrait, wildlife etc... Each of these lenses has its own attributes (physical size, speed, optical-length, resolution) that make it more desirable for one style or the other. Considering I have no one specific role for lens, I find myself ping-ponging between all of them depending on the direction of the wind! I just know that I'm not happy with the results i get from my 55-250!

I’m not rich (especially with the upcoming expenses) so any purchase is a BIG one. My body will be replaced anyway in the next 9-12 months; either FF or cropped depending upon what canon has to offer...
Any advice for this rather “privileged” dilemma?

Thanks.

[rpt]

Long story short; I’m getting married at the start of August and moving to Bangalore, India (for the next couple of years) at the end of August. Camera gear is actually more expensive (from what i have found, PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong) in India than here in Europe (not to mention the US) and apparently import tax is a bit of a bugger too. I can mentally and financially justify buying a single new lens before we go, and i’m torn between which to get. The weakest part of my set-up is at the longer end (55-250) and would like to replace it with either the 70-300L, 70-200L is 2.8 II or the 100-400L.

Regarding my photo style, I’m a bit of a Jack of all trades, master of none. I enjoy all photography; travel, street, landscape, strobist, portrait, wildlife etc... Each of these lenses has its own attributes (physical size, speed, optical-length, resolution) that make it more desirable for one style or the other. Considering I have no one specific role for lens, I find myself ping-ponging between all of them depending on the direction of the wind! I just know that I'm not happy with the results i get from my 55-250!

I’m not rich (especially with the upcoming expenses) so any purchase is a BIG one. My body will be replaced anyway in the next 9-12 months; either FF or cropped depending upon what canon has to offer...
Any advice for this rather “privileged” dilemma?

Thanks.

Take a look at the Indian prices at this site:
http://www.canon.co.in/personal/products/dslrs?languageCode=EN

There is a link for DSLR cameras and another for EF lenses.

The cameras are not much costlier here. The 5D3 is a bit cheaper than the US price. The prices on the Canon India site seem to be tax included prices as the price listed there is the price I paid. I know the UK prices are much higher. I thought the Europe prices were high too but I have not really compared them.

Hope this helps.

[dilbert]

How much time have you spent in India?

And coming from Europe, you're caucasian, right?

[expatinasia]

Of the three you mention (70-300L, 70-200L is 2.8 II or the 100-400L) I would definitely go with 70-200L is 2.8 II, without a single shadow if a doubt. Yes, it is slightly longer than the 70-300L, and a little heavier, but it is much more versatile too. My second choice would be the 70-300L, but honestly if you can, get the 70-200L is 2.8 II.

Hope you enjoy Bengaluru!

added in: And one other thing, check, and then check again the warranty. Seems some countries have international warranty and others do not.

[sanj]

U r welcome to my country. I am in Mumbai and a working cinematographer and a serious still hobbyist. I can assure you gear price is comparable to USA here.

Let me know if I can be of any help.

[adhocphotographer]

How much time have you spent in India?

And coming from Europe, you're caucasian, right?

We went to Rajasthan for 2 weeks last November...  thats it and yes, we're caucasian?!

[adhocphotographer]

The cameras are not much costlier here. The 5D3 is a bit cheaper than the US price. The prices on the Canon India site seem to be tax included prices as the price listed there is the price I paid. I know the UK prices are much higher. I thought the Europe prices were high too but I have not really compared them.

Hope this helps.

Awesome, thanks! I don't know how i managed to think they cost more???  That really releaves the pressure for me!

Sanj - thank you for confirming! I'm looking forward to it very much!

expatinasia - I think i'm leaning that way too...  good point on warrenty too!

[rpt]

Awesome, thanks! I don't know how i managed to think they cost more???  That really releaves the pressure for me!

Sanj - thank you for confirming! I'm looking forward to it very much!

expatinasia - I think i'm leaning that way too...  good point on warrenty too!

Do check the prices at your end. The Euro is at 71.678 Indian Rupees and The US$ is at 57.14 as of right now (17:03 IST...) http://www.xe.com/ucc/

expatinasia has a good point.

[LikeBreathing]

If cost is an issue go for the 70-300 IS USM non-L.  However, if you can afford it and don't mind the size and weight then the 70-200 is a given, especially if IQ is a concern.

I went to India a few months ago and loved it!
Some pics from my trip: http://likebreathing.com/india/

[adhocphotographer]

Some pics from my trip: http://likebreathing.com/india/

Nice shots... 

I think 70-200 is winning, and considering the current exchange rate means that it is actually cheaper to buy there, depending on the warranty, I'll pick it up when i get there! 

Thanks for all the advice!

[dilbert]

How much time have you spent in India?

And coming from Europe, you're caucasian, right?

We went to Rajasthan for 2 weeks last November...  thats it and yes, we're caucasian?!

I can't believe you're going back... your wife is going to stay indoors nearly all the time?

[adhocphotographer]

I can't believe you're going back...

Why? We had a great time, loved the food, people, culture etc. Also it is a growth area in our professional fields!

your wife is going to stay indoors nearly all the time?

Not likely, she is the Scientific Attaché for the French Embassy...  She got the job, and as an acadmic scientist (biophysicist/biochemist) it was not too difficult for me to find another lab there to continue my research (muscle disease in children)... So, it is not as though I’m dragging her there, nor do I think it will be a problem.

[jenbenn]

I just know that I'm not happy with the results i get from my 55-250!

Thanks.

 Maybe you could explain to us why you are not happy with the results from the 55-250? AF too slow, build quality, optical quality? Focal length? Aperture? This would make it easier to recommend something for you.
 
In general: I have lived quite a long time in India and photographed most corners of the country.
 You can check out my pics here if you want: www.photography-in-style.de

 In general I am no longer using long white tele lenses in India. The exception being wildlife (esp. tigers) and the occasional compressed landscape.
When I started out I used a 70-200 f/2.8. Then I switched to the 70-200 f/4 IS (w 1.4x converter) because of weight (both on full-frame). In the end I even largely abondend using the latter  lens.

The reason why tele lenses have not worked too well for me are the following:

1. too big, too heavy- they wear you down in the heat and keep you from getting shots (Exception, see above).

2. too eye catching in the cities and crowds. People will shy away from your camera more easily while doggy characters are attracted (touts and thieves).

3. It is a hassle to fight through the crowds with such a big lens getting in your and other people's way.

4. your photographs are not very engaging, because you have to stand too far off. Better invest in a good midrange zoom and a nice portrait prime (85mm 1.8, 100/2 or 100/2.8 macro) and get close to your subject. A UWA lens will also come handy.

5. Unless you shoot wild animals full time, better carry a light, black tele zoom for the rare occasion where you really need it (  like 70-300 IS non-L or Tamron 70-300 VC) This should also do for compressed landscape. The opitical quality of both lenses is very high.
 
Regarding lens cost:
Prices in India are either the same or slightly more expensive than in Europe (dfepending on the exchange rate). You usally do not find special offers and the shops may not stock your desired lens.  Consider also guarantee issues. I have browsed through some stores in delhi (Connaught Place area) and Mumbai(Fort area) and found hardly any L-enses in stock,  even in the bigger stores. Probably better to buy at home.
 

[adhocphotographer]

jenbenn - Some really great shots on your website! Thanks for your input, you have given me a lot to think about!

 Maybe you could explain to us why you are not happy with the results from the 55-250? AF too slow, build quality, optical quality? Focal length? Aperture? This would make it easier to recommend something for you.
 

AF too slow (though my camera does not help), build quality (the filter thread actually broke off), the optical quality at 250 isn't what i would like. Focal length is fine and the variable aperture doesn't bother me much...  though if i were to have a fast lens, i would be more inclinded to use it for portaits. IQ is important to me, and not missing the shot, which i tend to with the 55-250 (didn't have that problem with a firend 70-200 that i borrowed).

1. too big, too heavy- they wear you down in the heat and keep you from getting shots (Exception, see above).

2. too eye catching in the cities and crowds. People will shy away from your camera more easily while doggy characters are attracted (touts and thieves).

3. It is a hassle to fight through the crowds with such a big lens getting in your and other people's way.

4. your photographs are not very engaging, because you have to stand too far off. Better invest in a good midrange zoom and a nice portrait prime (85mm 1.8, 100/2 or 100/2.8 macro) and get close to your subject. A UWA lens will also come handy.

5. Unless you shoot wild animals full time, better carry a light, black tele zoom for the rare occasion where you really need it (  like 70-300 IS non-L or Tamron 70-300 VC) This should also do for compressed landscape. The opitical quality of both lenses is very high.

 

1, 2 and 3- Agreed...  very good point. I would still keep the 55-250 to use if discretion was required.
4 - An interesting suggestion...
5 - I'm not going to be wildlife shooting full time, but it is something I would like to do more of, especially birds!

I have the 10-22 which I love as a landscape and close-quarters lens…  my 17-55 is my standard walk-around lens for travel, and I use my 50 for street (even though it is a tad tight on my cropped body).

Thanks!

[awinphoto]

From personal experience... get the 70-300 IF you are a daytime shooter, or shoot still life, or wildlife...  get the 70-200  F2.8II IF you are an event shooter, if you do a lot of candids, a lot of low light people shots...  The 100-400 is nice, but not as sharp as either of those two lenses, got a funky push-pull action going on, and what you gain in reach you lose in functionality, speed, and ergonomics.  Just my 2 cents.