Canon 30D, couple questions???

[MCary]

I'm ordering a Canon 30D I have ~$2000 to spend and who knows when I'll have more. I'd like to get the most from it as I can before I have to splurge for more stuff.

I'm getting the body only instead of the kit.
a 100mm Macro EF 100
a strobe/flash 580 ex

and I was thinking rather than the kit lens I would get a 1.8 50mm prime. About the same price but I expect a its a better lens than the kit lens.

But I'm thinking, Should I get the 1.4 50 mm prime which is a much better lens or stick with the original plan and use the money saved to start looking at a telephoto?

Opinions?

Mike

 

[gregr]

Gotta ask you what kind of subjects you like/want to shoot? And regarding the 50f1.8 v. f1.4-- that comes down to what kind of quality you'll be happy with. The cheaper lens is still excellent optically- it scores very high on the lens tests at www.photodo.com at 4.2. The more expensive f1.4 version theoretically has slightly better sharpness, color. Is the extra quality worth it to you? I know... you asked first

 

[MCary]

I like high quality and I can sometimes afford it. But can I tell the difference? If I can't tell the difference between the 2, the extra money seems like a waste.

Mike

 

[gregr]

I think you'll be able to tell the difference on your own monitor, especially if you've had a chance to look at files from both lenses in a variety of situations. And if you've gone to the effort of calibrating your monitor etc. If you're the sort of person that goes to a lot of effort to get the best you're capable of then yeah, I think you'd see a difference... I'm that sort of person though I scrimp here and there (17-40L instead of the much more expensive 16-35L, 24-105L instead of 24-70L). But in this case I've not used either lens so I can't say firsthand how big the difference really is.

 

[raddogz]

Multiple rebates are being offered on what you are looking at.

 

[CaptainNemo]

Do you need 1.4? I find that both 50mm lenses are quite nice, and I do own the 50 1.4. If I had to do it all over again, I would probably have gotten the 1.8.

One other benefit of the 1.8 on a 20d/or 30d.. less birefringence than the 1.4. Thats the ugly purple fringe (Not CA), you get at anything larger than 2.8, on high contrasting edges, or chrome objects.


Both will be razor sharp by 2.8

I would put the saved money towards other things.. maybe a polarizer, or even an extra battery.

Johnny

 

[mystic7]

Any differences can be easily reduced with a basic knowledge of Photoshop.

 

[MCary]

Thanks guys. I was leaning toward the 1.4 but am now settled on the 1.8. There are so many extras that I need. A remote switch, a good bag, extra battery, extra CF card, CS upgrade for photoshop, and a monitor calibration program. Seems a waste to not have those instead of the lens.

I have an old Canon film camera with tons of filters and lenses. I'm going to use that for B&W. I'm building my own little darkroom for that. I love messing around with black and white. I did it alot in high school and college.

Mike

 

[dougie]

why dont you just use the 30D for black+white?

i love the b+w pics from my 30D.

 

[Ebn]

The 50 1.8 since the Canon version of the 50 1.4 isn't that great. Save your money there and use it elsewhere.

 

[gregr]

Did I see a tripod on that list?

 

[MCary]

I have 2 tripods already. I've been taking pictures for awhile. I just desided to break into the DSLR thang since seeing you guys' great shots. My previous Digitals were pathetic. Only good for e-mail. I recently took my 35mm Canon film camera to Jackson WY, Teton Park, and Yellowstone. Shot up 6 rolls of film. Had a great time but couldn't review the pics until I got home and got them processed. It is also difficult with a poor digital or a film camera where you can't review and tweak shots to get good aquarium shots due to the unique nature of our lighting and the fact that I'm a rank amatuer.

Mike