I am getting more into photography and am purchasing more gear. I have a T3i and a couple lenses that came with it which are nothing special. Plus the cheapest canon 40 mm. I am wondering if I should invest toward a flash, some external flashes and wireless receivers or save up for a nicer lens. Any advice or thoughts would be helpful.
Collecting gear
- Thread starter mcragg9
- Start date
It all depends on what you like to shoot. If you already have more than one lens, maybe a flash would be the best option unless your primary subject is landscape.
Upvote
0
A fast lens first might be wise. Lack of flash might be crucial for portraiture at times, but lack of a fast lens... you want that the moment you get a DSLR.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Exactly! There was another thread I was going to post in before this one caught my eye. In that thread I was going to say that my photography teacher asks questions from the reading as a form of taking attendance and he'll spring funny questions to lighten things up like - how many lenses are enough for a photographer.
The "correct" answer is "just one more..." you're always going to want another one.
But, to buy up stuff just because you're a collector and not knowing how or why to use some of the equipment doesn't seem to make sense to me. Buy one thing at a time, use the heck out of it and enjoy it. If you come up with a need, then go shopping for something else - or if you see something new and cool see if you have a need for it.
Upvote
0
For starters get a 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 16-35 2.8L II, TS-E 17 L, TS-E 24 II L, 85 1.2L II, 35 1.4L, 135 2L, 100 2.8L IS Macro, 300 2.8L IS II, 500 4L IS II, 1.4XIII, 2XIII, 8-15 4L, then step back, relax, use them and decide what you need more... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DEricFiskCGD said:
Upvote
0
You accomplished the feat of toasting thousands of dollars in camera gear without any redundancy.tron said:
It's good for me to forget that I read your suggestion. 
Upvote
0
+1. This is a question that pops up repeatedly so I thought I'd chip in with a more detailed response and share my thoughts... Sometimes gear isn't needed at all, but rather knowledge. In order of importance: Knowledge/Training, Lighting, Lenses, Bodiesneuroanatomist said:
Photography is creating an image using light. Understanding and being able to craft light is the most important thing in photography. Skillful use of a cheap body and kit lens and "good light" will produce better results than a $6000 body with a $4000 lens in "bad light".
That being said, you should look at equipment purchases as investments. You are investing in something that can influence the quality or existence of your final images, whether that investment is in training, lighting equipment, lenses or a body.
e.g. Wider aperture lenses could offer faster AF which could mean the difference between getting a shot at a critical moment vs missing the shot.
Another factor to consider is that a lens with good optics can hold its value better than a lens that is bad optically.
e.g. Something like say the 100mm f/2.8 L IS will hold its value over time whereas you might not be able to sell a poor quality lens down the line to fund upgrades, because there is little demand for a weak-performance 2nd-hand lens.
The third factor I'd mention is that having more equipment leads to higher insurance premiums. So you should assess every [however often] to see what equipment is actually bringing in the money/the-shots-you-want vs just sitting in a closet leaching away your money in insurance.
Upvote
0
ajfotofilmagem said:You accomplished the feat of toasting thousands of dollars in camera gear without any redundancy.tron said:
I'd argue that, the 17TS-E and 1.4 TC make the 24 TS-E close to redundant, and the 135 f2 and 100 Macro L are so similar I've yet to meet anybody that can reliably distinguish between images shot with either.
Upvote
0
I'd consider a copy of Lightroom at this point; the lens profiles work well and the more distortion you have the more it does for you. At $150 (or less at B&H in a bundle with many things) it is a lot of value. It's one thing you can use with anything from an SL1 and a plastic fantastic to a 1Dx and whatever lens you'd care to consider.
Food for thought, and this is definitely only my opinion - priced accordingly!
Jim
Food for thought, and this is definitely only my opinion - priced accordingly!
Jim
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Which of those two lenses do you think was used for this shot?privatebydesign said:
Er the 600 with a 1.4
I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.
As you, I do a lot of research before buying a lens after deciding I need one, I travel a lot so whilst having one of everything might be a nice idea (principally to a collector
) it is generally impractical. My research, specifically with regards actual resultant images, pointed me to get the 17TS-E (and a 1.4 TC) and the 100L Macro, even though I shot with a 135 f2 for many years in the manual focus FD system.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
privatebydesign said:I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.
As you, I do a lot of research before buying a lens after deciding I need one, I travel a lot so whilst having one of everything might be a nice idea (principally to a collector
At the time I bought the TS-E 24L II, there was no convenient filter system for the 17mm version (e.g., the Wonderpana that's now available), so having front threads was a significant differentiator for me. For tilt aficionados, the 24mm offers an extra 2° (8.5° vs. 6.5° max tilt). I might pick up a TS-E 17mm at some point...
I find the 135L to have a significant advantage for shooting action in low light (e.g. gymnasiums) - the extra stop and faster AF make a noticeable difference in the resulting images. But for portrait use, I agree that the 100L does just fine.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:privatebydesign said:I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.
As you, I do a lot of research before buying a lens after deciding I need one, I travel a lot so whilst having one of everything might be a nice idea (principally to a collector
At the time I bought the TS-E 24L II, there was no convenient filter system for the 17mm version (e.g., the Wonderpana that's now available), so having front threads was a significant differentiator for me. For tilt aficionados, the 24mm offers an extra 2° (8.5° vs. 6.5° max tilt). I might pick up a TS-E 17mm at some point...
I find the 135L to have a significant advantage for shooting action in low light (e.g. gymnasiums) - the extra stop and faster AF make a noticeable difference in the resulting images. But for portrait use, I agree that the 100L does just fine.
Agreed re both points re tse and the two tele lenses.
Beyond the advantages of focus speed and low light shooting, the DOF at 135/2 is something that the 100L can't touch in any lighting at any time and place. Like Neuro said, if all you are doing is portraiture in a controlled setting and you don't want/need f2, then the two lenses would be potentially very redundant. Otherwise, they are two completely different lenses generally used for two very different things (especially for people that have both).
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:privatebydesign said:I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.
As you, I do a lot of research before buying a lens after deciding I need one, I travel a lot so whilst having one of everything might be a nice idea (principally to a collector
At the time I bought the TS-E 24L II, there was no convenient filter system for the 17mm version (e.g., the Wonderpana that's now available), so having front threads was a significant differentiator for me. For tilt aficionados, the 24mm offers an extra 2° (8.5° vs. 6.5° max tilt). I might pick up a TS-E 17mm at some point...
I find the 135L to have a significant advantage for shooting action in low light (e.g. gymnasiums) - the extra stop and faster AF make a noticeable difference in the resulting images. But for portrait use, I agree that the 100L does just fine.
Oh I agree there are differentiators that make one choice more compelling than the other in each case, I am sure there are some happy 800mm owners out there even though the 600 and 1.4 is a "better" lens at 840. But those differentiators become far less about IQ and more to do with functionality or specific user applications.
As for the extra tilt on the 24, well it needs it, with focal length being a function of the tilt required the 17's 6.5º tilt actually gives you a shorter J distance than the 24's 8.5º. What is comparatively limiting is the 90mm TS-E with a mere 8º of tilt.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
