On the low light hand held stuff, you could also make the argument for flash instead of fast lenses. Depends on what you're shooting though. Flash isn't going to work well in all environments and sometimes using one is just plain obnoxious. Again, it all depends.

 

I think there are better choices for the 16-35/17-40 on a crop body. I guess if you ever plan on upgrading they would be great. But they SUPERB lenses as an ultra-wide on a FF, but would only be roughly a 'typical' walkaround on a crop where they have a lot more competition against the 'digital only' market.

the difference between 4.0 and 2.8 is only one stop. Sometimes that extra stop can make all the difference in the world though. I think the 24-70 vs. 24-105, is one of the more difficult decisions (behind the "what 70-200 to get"). I think I personally would rather go w/ the 2.8 over the IS, but if you're shooting still subjects, the IS will probably give you more keepers in low light even vs. the extra stop as usually they claim IS will give a 3-4 stop difference in shake, but yes 2.8 will give you a shallower dof for subject isolation.

 

too much pressure.... might do it.... any other recommendations as to battery, memory, etc. to get right off the bat?

 

yep.

 

uhh.... that is terrible advice. The 24-105 is a stellar lens and I would recommend that to you over the 24-70. If you are thirsty for crazy speed get a 1.8 or 1.4. The 24-105 costs about $130 less. And, the IS of the 24-105 will give you better (not as prone to shakiness) handheld shots than the 24-70. The IS is GOLD and I miss it dearfully (sic).

ps. 2.8 is overrated, imo. It ain't all that. Again, if you want speed, get a 1.8 or 1.4

 

Sandisk Extreme III CF and the matching reader. Battery comes with the camera unless you want to get a grip.

 

I'd get a 4GB memory. It is definitely enough. You may end up wanting upgrading to 8GB down the road, but unless you take 1000 pictures every day, 4GB should be enough.

As far as brand, SanDisk is supposed to be really good.

 

Good to hear another perspective, here is what the first guy recommended...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

and

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._USM_Lens.html

L series worth all the hype?

 

I got by w/ 1 gig of memory, and 1 battery for like a year. I suppose if you're going on any trips or just want some back ups for those emergency situations, they are cheap enough. Sterlingtek makes some decent batteries for cheap. Sandisk cards are good, but i've heard people have good experiences with transcend at a much cheaper price. But pictures are priceless, and some people just figure buy the best.

I am going on a trip in another couple weeks, so I just picked up another like 14gb worth of memory to avoid bringing a laptop.

The only other thing that I can think you should have is a rocket blower, and maybe some other cleaning supplies. Maybe a good bag.

 

lets just say, if you got both of those lenses, I would hate you.

ALTHOUGH... I think I would shoot for IS on the 70-200.. it IS worth it.

 

L series is some very good glass.

 

A few bad puns later..

 

Would that be sour grapes I'm tasting in those remarks?

 

 

Those are the first two lenses I bought (even before the nifty-fifty). They are both great lenses and great values. Both are sharp and have great build quality worthy of the L label.

That said, I have sold both of them and replaced them with the 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f4 IS. While the 17-40 was great in image quality, it was a bit on the short end for a walk around. I seemed to always want a little more reach - but that will always be the case. And I guess my hands aren't very steady, because even with the upgrade to the 70-200 f4 IS, I still had a bunch of throw away shots due to shake - but that was at 200x1.6x1.4 (Tamron 1.4x extender)=448 and ~1/500 shutter speed.

Keep in mind, that I used both the 17-40 and the 70-200 for about a year and a half and sold them at 585 and 500 shipped, respectively. So I basically rented to great lenses for a year an a half for about $200.

As for memory cards, get at least 2 or 3 x 4GB cards. They are pretty cheap and you always want a spare - for extra space and in case one craps out on you. I've used both Ridata and Sandisk with no issues.

Two batteries will be enough unless you decide to get a grip. With everyone raving about them, I bought one. It is nice to have the extra buttons and controls, but I hardly ever run out of power on a normal battery and the extra weight/space is something to consider. On my trip to San Diego last weekend, I left it at home and did not miss it at all.



But just get something already, Chris!! .... and you to Synth!!

 

Worth the extra $700-$1600?

 

You have an NSX you can afford some nice glass.

 

^^ Seriously, you will be content with the 17-40 and 70-200 non-IS for some time. When you think you NEED something else, you will be able to sell them for a modest loss and get something else.

 

 

Do you realize how expensive NSX parts are?

 

not as expensive as camera parts.

 

 

You sure about that buddy?

 

So much

I'll be ordering my 24-105 as soon as I get the cash in hand for my pottery wheel.

If low light is your only worry, the IS will more than compensate for the extra stop, as Rubin said. Also, don't forget you can always bump up your ISO. And, as a last resort, underexpose the shot and push it in PS.

 

With the file size on a 40D (RAW, of course), I can fill a 4GB card very quickly. Especially when shooting action at 6.5 fps.

Either invest in a portable HD to dump to, or buy several cards. Or both.

We did warn you...

 

it was not intentional!

 

no!

 

Shooting at 3FPS in RAW on my XTI fills up my 4gb pretty fast too.

 

Well damn....

looks like I might want an 8gig.

Anyone know stores that sell them relatively cheap???

I really kind of need it by Thursday around 5pm, so unless I did super overnight shipping, online really isn't an option.

 

Re: 24-70 / 24-105

Being an owner/ex-owner of both of these lenses and having used them extensively and primarily for low-light/indoor applications, thought I would elaborate a little more on what has been most meaningful to me with respect to them. Now, keep applications in mind, there is a time and place for any lens - it just depends on what you want to do with it:

- the 24-105 is lighter and physically shorter and therefore easier to use in a walk-around/daily application.

- the 24-105 also has IS, I miss that a LOT - I used to handhold many shots without looking in the viewfinder, to get shots I would never be able to get otherwise - they would easily come out sharp and steady with the 24-105 - pretty much never the case with the 24-70. The main subject will come out OK but the outlying details such as mixer knobs and lights will be blurred. This especially applies to low-light shots. If you have ample light, either lens is fine. For low-light, the faster speed of the 24-70 is NOT a substitute for it's lack of IS! (something which I sadly did not find out until I tried it myself.)

- of course, the 24-105's extra zoom coverage.

- the 24-70 is rather long and as such is not the most discreet lens. At its widest angle, the lens is extended fully (its a reverse mechanism). It's just kinda annoying for big crowds and tight spaces - I find myself retracting it frequently when moving around, just so I don't get it caught somewhere. This is not an insurmountable issue, though.

So in conclusion, the 24-70 hasn't really given me any advantages, even with the faster speed, for the type of photography I most often do. It's DOF flexibility and bokeh is nice, but so is the 50 1.4's. And for people shots, I find myself using 4.0 or 5.0 more often than 2.8. If I was doing sports photography the 2.8 would be arguably more beneficial but personally when I have shot at motorsports events I did not feel limited by the 24-105. And as someone said earlier, an external flash helps with the slower lens speed.

Here's a test (of many) that compares the lenses from a technical standpoint. From this view, the 24-70 has a number of advantages over the 105. My understanding and thoughts on it come from a more "real world" analysis. As mentioned there is greater vignetting with the 24-105 but that was never a factor for me, and hardly noticeable with low-light shots. And keep in mind, vignetting is also a technique to give pictures a little more "flair" so its not necessarily a "bad" thing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/28-105.shtml

 

Thanks for the link, Rubin. I know you've been very pleased with it, but every positive review I read about it from fellow nature photogs makes it that much easier to spend the cash.

 

Do not overlook this bit of advice Synth. There's a good reason the 24-70 is known as "the brick" among Canon circles.

 

*cough* 17-55 f2.8 AND IS!!

 

Believe me - that's been a tough call for me to make. If I weren't already spoiled by the reach on my 17-85, I'd probably have done it.

That's, of course, where it goes back to buying lenses tailored to your shooting habits, and why I like Jeff's advice to pick up the 50mm & play with his friend's collection until he sorts it out. What a great advantage to have! *so jealous*

 

I'm jealous of all you creatons..

 

think this might be a good overall solution for the Synthman..

 

As many people have stated before, the only reason the 17-55 doesn't have the red stripe on it is because it's an EF-S mount.

 

But, it takes BEAUTIFUL shots and really isn't that bad in size.

 

From a previous post:
As for where to get them - check the ads from the major stores. At least one of them is bound to have a decent deal. Also, don't forget to check Coscto.

 

No costco near me