PShizzy: The Blog

From Zander, on FredMiranda.com:

Thanks for taking time to do this, I really appreciate it.
Right now I have:

• 20D, nearing the 50k shutter count.
• 28-105 3.5-4.5
• 50 1.8
• 70-200 2.8

My budget is roughly $2200. I could come up with a few extra hundred dollars if needed. I use my 70-200 by far the most, and often it is not long enough. I was thinking that I would pick up the 300 f/4 non-IS to cover the longer focal lengths.

I use my 28-105 for more wide angle shots, but it is awkward for me in terms of focal length. It is often either not long enough of not wide enough. For this reason, I was considering selling it and picking up either the 17-40, the 24-70 or even the 17-55.

I was also considering either the Mark II, 40D or 30D as a second body, to go along with, not replace my 20D. I am attracted to the Mark II for obvious reasons, but right now I am thinking the $ might be better spent on some fast glass.

Another consideration is that my shooting consists of perhaps %85 sports, I have all the other events at my school to cover, hence my wishing for a WA of sorts. I am torn between the 17-40 and 24-70 in terms of useful focal length and aperture. And then it was thrown out there I should look at the 85 1.8 (?)

Some combos I was considering…

30D + 300 f/4 + 24-70 or 16-35 (for journalistic type shots)
40D + 300 f/4 + 17-40
Mark II + 300 f/4 (keep 28-105)

Thanks again for working on this.
______________________________________________

Ok Zander. One approach would be to keep the 20D until it died. The 28-105 would go, because it’s not fast enough for night sports. Keep the 50 and 70-200. With your 2200, plus 150 or so from the 28-105, you’d have 2350 to spend. with maybe 200 more if you sell your cat/soul/friend or something.

First things first: the 17-40 or 24-70. Ignore both, and head for the Sigma 18-50 2.8. You’d have a gap between 50 and 70, but you’d have 18 covered at 2.8 instead of f/4. Forget new, and go for it used, where it might cost you around $350 or so. 2,000 left, maybe 2200.

Get an 85 1.8. I’ve seen under 300 used, figure 280. That leaves you 1720, maybe 1920.

Sell your pet/organ/friend and get about 150 or so dollars, then get a Sigma 120-300 2.8. Yes, there’s overlap, but you can’t really get 300 2.8 for under 2k without the Sigma. And a Sigma or similar 300 prime would be in the same price range as the zoom, so you may as well get the zoom, since it’s an easier lens to find on the buy and sells. Your final kit would be:

• 20D
• Sigma 18-50 2.8
• 50 1.8
• 85 1.8
• 70-200 2.8
• 120-300 2.8

You have a range from 18 to 300 covered at 2.8, with the 50 1.8 or 85 1.8 primes serving for anything from portraits to low light indoor gym shots. Your next purchase would be a cheap 20D, not a 30D. Forget the bigger screen and not so big difference in ISO noise (remember, same sensor between the 20 and 30D), save that for more lenses. With 2 20D’s, you could be very versatile. If you can live without the 85 1.8, you can get the 20D instead, and then go 18-50 and 70-200 on the bodies, or 18-50 and 120-300. Either way, you can cover low light events decently.
______________________________________________

Next approach: If you had to get a newish camera, get the 40D. New sensor, more versatility with live view. Get the grip. So you’re down from 2200 to about 1200. Get the Sigma 18-50 2.8. Down to about 850. Sell the 28-105, back to 1k. You can then either get the 300 4 IS for that, or the 300 4 NON IS for about 325 less, which you then parlay into an 85 1.8. The difference would be that the old 300 is no longer serviced by Canon. Good range, two cameras, but not especially good for night field sports, since you’re at f/4. Final kit:

• 20D
• 40D
• 18-50 2.8
• 50 1.8
• 70-200 2.8
• 300 4 IS OR
• 300 4 non IS plus 85 1.8

Oh, and no need to sell kitty to get some extra cheddar for your purchases.
______________________________________________

Final approach. Sell the 70-200. Sell the 28-105. Figure you got about 3250. Get the Sigma 120-300 for 1850 or so. 1400 left. get another 20D perhaps with grip for 525 or so, leaving you with 875. Get a Sigma 18-50 for 350, 525 left. Tamron 28-75 2.8 for 300 or so, 225 left. Sell the family pet and get 125 bucks, then go get a 100 2 for 350. Two cameras, all 2.8 or faster lenses, two wider type lenses, but a gap between 75-120 with a 100 2.0 to fill that gap. Final kit:

• 20D
• 20D
• 18-50 2.8
• 28-75 2.8
• 50 1.8
• 100 2 (or an 85 1.8, but the 100 fills the gap better).
• 120-300 2.8

Bottom line, you have some choices to make. Each kit sorta aims for a need, first one getting you range at 2.8, but you only have one camera, and a gap. Second one gets you 2 cameras, a 40D even, but f/4 at 300 really limits you. Last kit gets you 2 cameras, 300 at 2.8, but you sell that very versatile 70-200 2.8. It’s up to you to decide which kit best serves your purposes. Be flexible in your choices so long as every lens serves a necessary purpose.

Rules: Buy used, you can’t the cost of going new. Don’t get the latest generation camera unless you feel it’s absolutely necessary. And sell the dead weight lenses. That 28-105 won’t net you much, but it can go towards a lens you would use, and could actually produce images with in a low light environment. I’d say drop the 50 1.8 but that’s so cheap that you may as well keep it.

Tags: equipment, photography // 1 Comment »