File :-(, x, )
next lens purchase (canon btw) Anonymous
I'm not sure what I should do for my next lens purchase. I have the 17-55 f/2.8, the 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 and the obligatory cheapo canon 50mm f/1.8.
My question is, should I upgrade on a telephoto or go fisheye? Any lens suggestions? Ideally lens would cost 600ish but can go as high as 1200. (poor college student is poor).

PS this is Canon 40d
pic semi-related.
>> Anonymous
Maybe start by telling us what you shoot.
>> Anonymous
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
>> Anonymous
Get a Canon 70-200
>> Anonymous
Fisheye should be amongst the very last things you buy.
>> Anonymous
I'll shoot anything that moves. Oh yeah, and landscapes and still life. Anything really.
>> Anonymous
Is the IS worth the 400 dollars on the 70-200f/2.8?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-GREY/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html
>> Anonymous
>>277928
I hand hold more than I should, so in my case I am glad I dropped the extra cash, just my .02
>> Anonymous
lensbaby composer
>> Anonymous
>>277928
I would say you ether buy cheapo but good 70-200/4 or 70-200/2.8 IS.
Paying for IS on /4 is just meh. While /2.8 without IS is just not right.

Get /2.8 with IS, will serve you for years.
>> Anonymous
>>277937
this man is correct
>> Anonymous
Yeah, don't get the fisheye, you'll pro'ly use it 10% of the tiem you shoot, unless you want cool skating vids with a Mk II, but you don't have a Mk II now, do you? So get the 70 - 200 2.8 and start shooting some fucking birds and bash people with that nice piece of glass.
>> Anonymous
>>277937
although IS makes more sense with a slower lens like the f4 than the f2.8..

If you shoot landscapes, why not upgrade on the wider end? I hear good things about 10-22, or you can get the sigma or tokina equivalents for cheaper.
>> ­
17-40 L
or
10-24 L
or
any prime
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>277919
Get this lens>>277922.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>277937Paying for IS on /4 is just meh. While /2.8 without IS is just not right.
>> Anonymous
Decide what you shoot that you don't yet have a lens for. Don't go out and spent $600 just because.

While you are shooting, what is it that you sit there any think to your self that you wish you could do?
>> Anonymous
just get the 70-200 non-IS
>> Anonymous
average people should get the 70-200 f/4 IS for $1,000

much higher image quality than the f/2.8 models, smaller, lighter and cheaper

none of us _really_ need the 2.8, up your iso one stop, there you go. dof? meh, it's not a huge difference
>> Anonymous
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=92535
>> Anonymous
>>278218

The image quality difference is so negligible that you have to be some pixel peeping fag to tell the difference. That being said though there is a difference from 2.8 to 4. f/4 is slightly clearer, but f/2.8 is still 100% usable.

I got the 2.8 IS and I love it. I hand hold 90% of my shots and I shoot in such dark locations that if I was using f/4 the motion blur would ruin my shots. Although if your goal is to get shots of the kids running around out doors, or stalking kids on the play ground, go for the 70-200 non-IS. Sun should keep your shutter speeds in easy hand hold ranges. There is no reason to get the 70-200 f/4 IS unless you are shooting indoors, at night or have a server case of parkinson's.


As for OP I would say you are missing a nice wide prime, something like a sigma 30 1.4 or if you want to blow the whole 1200 the canon 35 1.4L.
>> Anonymous
"Ideally lens would cost 600ish but can go as high as 1200. (poor college student is poor)."

Oh the irony.
>> Anonymous
>>277919
... can go as high as 1200. (poor college student is poor).

Though poverty is relative, you ain't poor by ANYONES imagination if you can spend $1200 on a lens.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
I've got a friend with the 70-200 f/4 IS and I've got the 70-200 2.8 IS, so I've tried them both. Great lenses. Neither of us have complaints.

I'd second the comments about not worrying about the IQ of the 2.8. It's a non-issue really unless you've some unusual requirement. If you test them enough you'll find they both have points where they match or beat each other at, depending on the light and the distances involved. I found the 2.8 IS to suit me better due to the unreliable or poor lighting here in the UK. On overcast days or the winter it is nice to be able to get that extra stop.

If you're not very strong then remember that the 2.8 is double the weight, I've heard a few people complain about this, but you'll get used to it eventually even if you're thin or light framed. Most of the complaints are from people used to their near weightless plastic kit lens and then jumping straight to that kind of gear. I used big old chunky manual lenses and SLRs before this so I was more than prepared for it. The 70-200 2.6 is a fine companion to the 17-55 2.8.

Fisheyes tend to end up a toy you'll use for a month tops and then end up selling it or putting away and forgetting about it/regret buying it.

Up to you of course. You should listen to those reminding you that it is important to think of what you shoot or want to shoot with the lens. That should point the way as to what to get. Chances are though that a fisheye isn't going to be the answer.

Oh and any student that can shell out $1200, especially with everyone fretting about the economy, can't be doing too badly for themselves.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>278542he 70-200 2.6

That should read 2.8. Ahem.
>> M?rtin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>278542
fuck, 4chan has turned me into a pedo :(:(
I'm sure as hell canon's don't get me hard..
>> Anonymous
>>278569

aren't you 16 too? you're jailbait as it is.
>> Anonymous
>>277921
little boys.
>> Anonymous
to OP
consider doing macro
1) try backward lens macro
2) se if interests you
3) buy canon 100 f2.8
4) ?????
5) PROFIT
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
     File :-(, x)
>>278569
You were always an opinionless immoral sicko.

4chan just pointed you in a certain direction.

Don't blame the plumbing for the smell of the sewerage

(pic only mildly related, taken on a Canon)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S5 ISMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size6.00 - 72.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.01Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:21 15:01:48Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/4.0ISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length69.90 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeProgramFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance1.490 mWhite BalanceCloudyExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed149Image Number244-2082
>> Anonymous
>>278590

I dunno why you'd suggest the 100mm when the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 is within his range too. Sure it's probably not as versatile as the 100mm, but it'll outshine anything else on a Canon as far as macros go.