Should I spend 2k on lenses? - FM Forums

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Archive 2011 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

zaba 69
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

5DMkII won't give U nothing if it can't focus on " ants in the pants " moving fast keep 5D (for landscapes and portraits ) , sale 70-200 f 4 and 20D ad some $ and get 1DMkIII, 1DmkIIn or or 7D , and good flash at least 580 EX , if U sale 100-400 , get 1.4 extender for your 70-200 IS 2.8 it will almost cover your 400 range with better F-stop Good luck
PS. My MkIIn beat the crap out of 5DMkII focus wise in low light .

Dec 14, 2011 at 05:53 AM

Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

Don't buy anything. In fact, if I had your kit, I would sell lenses. Save the money for your daughter's college fund, or use it on a trip. Either would be better than buying more crap you really don't need, just because there are interesting rebate promotions out there. Spending money on equipment, given your current setup, is a waste unless you know exactly what your artistic or coverage goals are.

Dec 14, 2011 at 06:51 AM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

Julius Radu wrote:
I'm on the fence about spending more on photo gear , but I have 2k stashed away for just such an occasion.
The current rebates are very appealing.
My line up: 5DMK1, 20D, 17-40 L, 50 1.8 MK2, 24-70 2.8 L , 70-200 F4 L, 70-200 F 2.8 IS,
100-400 L.
A newer body like the 5DMK2 or the 7D would be nice, but I look at what my 20D is worth now and I start to use language not fit for minors.
I can see a day in the future, when my shiny new body now, will make a nice paper weight then.
The 85 F1.2 MK2 , and the 70-200 MK2 also are appealing. I would have to sell the MK1 after the rebates are over of course.
The 100 F 2.8 IS macro would be another pick, but I don't know if macro is for me.

I am just an amateur, I shoot mostly landscape on my hiking/climbing trips, and also shoot a 6 year old, that my current camera setup has a hard time focusing on, due to" ants in pants" syndrome on the part of my daughter.

The third option, save the cash until I have enough for a used 300 2.8 IS MK1.

Forth and final option, just save the cash. According to the Fed. there is no inflation so I have nothing to loose, right?

Thanks,
Julius

you don't really seem to know what you need or want in terms of new lenses so maybe just keep saving for now

and even though the value of bodies drops, 21MP + almost any lens = more detail captured than 12MP and excellent lens

but maybe just wait for 5D3 and get that or maybe a 5D2 used or new after the price comes down even more

the macro lens would open up new worlds for you, but you seem a bit unsure about it, it's probably the wrong season for that now anyway

Dec 14, 2011 at 06:56 AM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

Julius Radu wrote:
My ideal kit
5DMKII,
17-40, 70-200 f4 IS for landscape/ hiking
7D
24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 MKII, 300 2.8 IS MK1, 1.4 extender MKIII
85 1.2 for still portrait, with way out of focus background
or the 135 f2
I understand the price penalty for the 85 f1.2 but I think that long term will be a good investment, it may become a classic. And is a great looking glass!

sounds good
maybe because it also sounds familiar, almost

my kit:
5D2
24 1.4 II, 70-300L IS
7D
tamron 28-75 2.8, 300 2.8 IS Mk1, 1.4 and 2x MkIII
135 2

(plus 50 1.4 and 100L)

Dec 14, 2011 at 06:59 AM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

you might be able to sell the 70-200 2.8 IS and keep the f/4 for landscape/travel and outdoor wide angle field sports (300 2.8 IS could eventually be your primary field sports lens)

for indoor sports f/2.8 might be slow anyway until she gets to be a LOT older and assuming she ends up playing D1 basketball for a big program or something and you could always get away with 300 2.8 for lots of non-basketball indoor sports too and just use the 135 2 also

assuming she even plays sports

so you could sell the 70-200 2.8 IS and combine it with the saved money and then somehow triple that and then take her and family on safari and have memories to last forever

if oyu don't shoot a lot of distant wildlife perhaps even sell the 70-200 f/4 and 100-400L in addtion to teh 70-200 2.8 IS and replace all three with 70-300L IS, since you'd eventually have the 300 2.8 + .4xc and 2x TC for reach when you are really serious about wildlife pics (of course this assumes you do eventually get the 300 2.8 and won't miss the extra 100mm in the meantime, some big ifs and theh 300 2.8 IS maybe eats into safari fund)

Dec 14, 2011 at 07:04 AM

splathrop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

What seems to be lacking is the ability reliably to photograph the child. Sell what you need to, and get a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. It's manual focus, but that will not matter. At f/4 on your 5D you can put the whole room in focus, and even at night with only moderate room light you can probably get away with ISO 1600, no worse than 3200 for sure. Shutter speed won't be a motion stopper, but you won't have to track your child around with your focus. Plus which, you will own one of the world's great landscape lenses.

Dec 14, 2011 at 03:30 PM

arnold1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

Julius Radu wrote:
I'm on the fence about spending more on photo gear , but I have 2k stashed away for just such an occasion.
The current rebates are very appealing.
My line up: 5DMK1, 20D, 17-40 L, 50 1.8 MK2, 24-70 2.8 L , 70-200 F4 L, 70-200 F 2.8 IS,
100-400 L.
A newer body like the 5DMK2 or the 7D would be nice, but I look at what my 20D is worth now and I start to use language not fit for minors.
I can see a day in the future, when my shiny new body now, will make a nice paper weight then.
The 85 F1.2 MK2 , and the 70-200 MK2 also are appealing. I would have to sell the MK1 after the rebates are over of course.
The 100 F 2.8 IS macro would be another pick, but I don't know if macro is for me.

I am just an amateur, I shoot mostly landscape on my hiking/climbing trips, and also shoot a 6 year old, that my current camera setup has a hard time focusing on, due to" ants in pants" syndrome on the part of my daughter.

The third option, save the cash until I have enough for a used 300 2.8 IS MK1.

Forth and final option, just save the cash. According to the Fed. there is no inflation so I have nothing to loose, right?

Thanks,
Julius

I would certainly spend it on lenses. I would not repeat good suggestions others have given you on what to buy and what to get rid of. However, I'd say your $2000 is NOT earning you anything in the bank or appreciate in any way--BUT lens prices do go up every year!

Happy Holidays!

Dec 14, 2011 at 03:44 PM

Julius Radu
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

My wife already saves for our daughter's college fund, hopefully she won't get a degree in "mating habits of the Madagascar fruit bat " and end up protesting on Wall Street, because there are no jobs out there for here.
It seems that I do need something that can keep up with her. At age 5 she climbed Mt Langley , a 14er in Ca.
Here she is pointing to here next goal, Mt. Whitney!

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I like my 5D for the IQ it gives me, but focus with the center point then recompose, I loose a lot of great candid shots.

It seems like a faster camera it's what I need, I just can't bring myself to spend on a body that looses so much value over a few years.
All the lenses that I have , I got during big rebates, or on CR, for less or about even to what I could sell them now.
What I really need is a 5DMKII with the focusing of a 7D.

Dec 15, 2011 at 05:13 AM

arnold1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

The notion of loosing value over time when purchasing a new body, does not taking into account the utility (satisfaction) that one gains from that camera over the years. The amount of utility that is lost by not having the right gear, can be measured by the images we all could miss for not having the right lens or body.

Dec 15, 2011 at 02:53 PM

arnold1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

Perhaps a 7D then would be the right body for you as it satisfies both criteria you mentioned. Both 5D II and 7D have come down in price.

Dec 15, 2011 at 02:57 PM

johnahill
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Should I spend 2k on lenses?

for taking pics of kids with ants in their pants 5D1 + 100/2.0 is a great combo. The 100f2 is very under rated, great iq, well built, VERY fast af, lighter and faster than the 70-200 too.

Dec 15, 2011 at 05:24 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end