Thanks!

 

Hey Vlad or anyone else into SLR photography...

I'm looking at the EF 17-40mm and the EF 70-200mm lenses, going to buy one of them today. I'd like your opinions as to which one you would choose as a second lens, since I really want to upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens that came with my XT.

I'm a fan of shooting close shots, so the 17-40 would be a good choice there, but I know that a 70-200 would probably provide a much better zoom range than either the 17-40 or 18-55. If I were to get the 17-40 as a second lens, would I be somewhat redundant (in terms of ranges, not quality) with my collection of [two] lenses?

 

No you won't be redundant. Get 17-40 (you taking about "L" lens, right?) and get rid of your kit lens and forget about it! Somebody with more money than understanding might pay good money for it on ebay

I have 17-40 and it's perfect for close work with amazing quality. Half of "people" section on my website are made with 17-40.

Not sure about 17-200, I don't have it as I don't need deep zoom. But I'm sure if it's L - it's all good. I see a lot of those 17/70-200 at sport events. See reveiws at
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

If you'll notice you need more, you can always get it later or exchange. Remember that L lenses keep resale value at close at 80-90%.

 

Thanks Vlad. Yes, both are L lenses. I am leaning towards the 17-40mm myself. I really do appreciate the advice

 

Also 17-40 has really huge lens hood wich make you look pro and will made you very popular with gilrs

 

How phallic ....

 

For point and shoot cameras, Sony and Canon make excellent 5 mp cameras. I'm going to build my portfolio using my Canon Pro1 as I still enjoy some point and shoot features even though a Nikon D70/D90 would be fantastic...but I have bills.

 

yobri, you may want to look into teleconverter's. You will lose a stop or 2 on your lens speed but you can double or 1.6x or 1.4x your lenses for a couple hundred dollars.

 

Has anyone said

www.dpreview.com

yet?

 

Geez, I'm a relative newbie to the SLR scene, so I'll have to look up what teleconverters are... thanks for the advice. I'll see if that's a route that I should exploit...

 

I've read some other sites reviewing these lenses, but I haven't with this one. Thanks I've posted this question for opinions on both this and a Canon photography forum to see the pros and cons between these two special deal choices...

 

found this online you may find this interesting... basically tc goes on between the lens and body. So if you are using a 2x tc it'll make a 35-80 lens 70-160. The only drawback is you lose a stop or two. so a f2.8 lens may become someting like f3.5 or f4, which is not so great under low light or if you want really shallow depth of field, but its much cheaper than getting a new lens. Plus if you have L lenses I think the combo lens+tc would be better than a non L lens

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html

 

Thanks for pulling that up! Wow, that can be a real savings! I've really got some thinking to do (and pricing research on teleconverters ).

 

You see, you trying to compare two different purpose lenses. One for close work and another for long-range sport events. You just need to deside what exactly you going to shoot. And make your choise based on your goals.

Remember that having 1.6 ratio on your SLR, 200 really became analog of 320mm on film camera. That's a big zoom!

 

I went with the 17-40mm lens afterall... I am a fan of close-up pictures. Can't wait to get it it's now on backorder though...

Thanks Vlad

 

adorama, b&h, 17th street photo - my favorite stores

 

I browse B&H fairly often... looking into their flashes and possibly a 50mm lens. Finally got a tripod from another [computer] site. The 17-40mm lens cost me $528 before tax (at Dell), best price that I could find on the 'net. Thanks for the reco's

 

I know you've already bought your tripod, but make sure you get one as sturdy as possible. Also the Canon flashes are great, expensive but worth it over some other brand for your gear. THey are very advanced and work extremely well with their attl or ettl function

Now that you have the digiSLR you may want to brush up on your photoshop. It'll make a world of difference.

http://www.thelightsright.com/default.htm

is one of many photoshop sited devoted to photography, click on digital darkroom. Alot to digest but a lot of good stuff.

also look into

www.photoshopuser.com , its $99 a year but it has tons of tutorials, video tutorials and some other stuff including a magazine subscription. If you want to learn photoshop well this is a pretty good site.

 

There is a clone of Canon's 520 flash. From Quantarray, if I remember well. It's half the price and have excellent reviews. Flash is something you can afford to be non-Canon if on tight budget.

If you really need light for inside/studio work - don't get flash, get srobes. Check Aleinbees.com. Very reasonable prices for good semi-pro strobes. You can get two AB for price of one good Canon's flash.

If looking for cheap 50mm prime get non-L Mk1. Current Mk2 version has plastic ring and some other things cheaper than Mk1. Otherwise it's the only great sub$100 non-L lens. You can find Mk1 on ebay or photosites.

 

Thanks for those links! I always thought that I was rather proficient with PS, but then I read some of the SLR photog boards and see that I have a whole new side of PS to learn...

The tripod I have now was really cheap (reason why I bought it), but I completely understand the rationale for sturdiness. I'll probably try my new tripod out to see how it handles the SLR weight, but it'll probably best be used for my Sony digi camcorder (really small).

Thanks again, I need lot of practice with post processing and working with RAW files.