File :-(, x, )
obligatory equipment thread of the day Macheath
Hi /p/, I'm a new (1 month) photographer, but I've been researching and learning for maybe the past 6 months.

I currently own a RebelXT (or 350D if you prefer), Tamron 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 and Tamron 75-300 f/4-5.6. The telephoto one is fine for my needs and I don't see myself replacing it in the near future. However, I feel like the 28-80, despite being a good value, is still a $50 lens and it's soft at apertures bigger than f/8.

I only plan on this being a hobby, but I still want to take good pictures. I only plan on shooting vacations and the... occasional formal occasion. Meaning, I can't justify the purchase of $1000+ lenses. I've been looking into the Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime and the 17-40 f/4 L lens. Are these good choices?

Also, I might need a flash in the future (upcoming occasional formal occasion in a year or so), so please recommend one. I saw a Sigma flash for $130 that looked decent (had E-TTL II). How are Sigma's flashes?

-Macheath
>> Macheath
forgot to mention, pic not mine (from sxc.hu) but slightly related
>> Anonymous
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a good option aswell, Might not be wide enough for a DSLR, but its quite good for low light and inexpensive.

17 or 18 is a good wide angle range to start in but it can get expensive to Get a constant 2.8 lens
>> Macheath
Eh, I was looking at the Tamron 28-75 too, but I decided that 28mm is not wide enough for me due to the 1.6x crop factor and all. f/2.8 sounds attractive, but it's really only one full stop faster; not enough for me to surrender 11mm (well 17mm with the crop factor) and I want to buy a flash anyway.

Is there a situation where I will need an aperture larger than f/4 that a flash won't be suitable for or the 50mm f/1.8 won't be able to properly capture?
>> Anonymous
I have the 17-40L, 50 1.8, and 70-200 f/4L and I feel like it's an awesome setup. I can do pretty much all I want with it. The only thing I'm wanting is a slightly longer prime so I might pick up an 85 1.8 when I have the funds. I think you'll be happy with your setup.
>> Anonymous
the majority of /p/ think that more equitpment is what they need to make better photos.

why?
>> Don't let G.A.S. get YOU! des
>>36384
Popular misconception.
"Wow, that camera must take great pictures"
Add in a splash of epenis get and it's a winning combo~
>> Macheath
>>36385

To be honest, I'll admit that the L lens designation is influencing my decision a little. But I think my reasons for wanting those two lenses come from realizing that the lenses I currently own are genuinely lacking.

No matter how you try to spin it, the Tamron 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 will not get you the same results as the Canon 17-40 f/4L. I really want to be able to shoot a little wider than the Tamron is letting me. The 50mm f/1.8 has its uses too, and it's relatively cheap at $75.

I'm not really offended, but even though you're not explicitly condemning me, you're insinuating it. I'm at a position where the people who shoot with old, cheap film cameras think that I'm buying what I'm buying because I believe that expensive equipment will cover for poor technique (even though that's the case with IS) and the rich kids with 20/30D and better say I'm limiting my camera's potential by buying cheap equipment. I see truth in both arguments but I'll do what I want. I'm not going to be pretentious and use a Holga to show I'm creative with low quality equipment, nor will I buy a $3000 body and $1000 lenses just to be able to brag that I have them. I care more about what people say about my pictures than my equipment.
>> des
>>36391
>>you're not explicitly condemning me, you're insinuating it.
No, I'm just fucking around. Note the tilde~
Everybody loves new toys and they're lying if they say they don't. The only advice I would give is to rent a lens you're interested in before buying it. For at least a week.

Remember that the second you post something with the 17-40, someone will pipe up and say you should've went for the 16-35 f/2.8.
Could always go for the tokina 12-24, it seems to be the wide-angle darling these days. :3
>> Anonymous
If you have the money to buy more lenses that give you greater options when shooting then why the fuck not? Why let your tools limit you? If you're an oil painter (I am) and you have a bunch of shitty synthetic brushes, it's going to make your job a lot harder and you may not be able to use the brush strokes you like. So spend some money and get something good. This way you know it's you that needs fixing, not your equipment.

Anyways, the OP should consider if he will ever use these lenses on a full frame camera. If yes, then the lenses you've chosen will be great. If you're going to stay with a crop camera then EF-S lenses might be better, like the 17-85 for example.
>> Anonymous
Work within your limits, expand it only when the means allow. In the meantime, experiment. Remember to enjoy the process of discovery and learning. - fortune cookie.
>> Anonymous
I have heard good things about the 50mm prime; I'm planning on investing in one myself (I shoot on a 350D, just have the basic 18-55mm right now). I'm lusting after the f/1.8 aperture. Really, I've not read a negative review of the thing. If you're shooting vacations, though, it might behoove you to get a wide-angle (and there I can't help you, I don't own one and don't really have plans to buy one).
>> Anonymous
save up your money and go for big glass; you'll save hours/months/years of frustration dealing with muddy high f-stop lenses if you buy better first.

$400 for crap, or $700 for good? you'd be throwing the $400 away, but not the $700... it's a better buy (like a Honda over a Hyundai)