I'm not sure yet. My friend tried to post his 40d in a photography forum and people are bidding at 50% of the purchase price. He withdrew the offer. Given my camera's record (2 repairs), I'll be lucky to get higher.
I can't wait to get more money. At first I wanted a Tamron 17-50 but I played with some longer lenses my friend had and I think I want to go on that end of the lens. The Sigma 70-200 was mentioned but is there any other lens that would be good for portraiture around that range...for money's sake, probably not Canon brand? Also, I don't want to hijack the thread, but can I get away with shooting at Hermann Park with a friend posing for me without being harassed by the park authorities for a permit? It's for non-commercial use, just for practice so I know I can shoot there. But I've heard that if you drop out a light stand or tripod, then they'll just assume it's pro and want a permit. Thing is we really wanna test out some new flashes and umbrellas we have.
Already got it! Just looking for something I could use so I can be farther from the subject sometimes.
Is it that big of a difference? $100 50MM 1.8 vs $1200 24-70mm 2.8 Are you actually getting your $1100 dollars worth? Or could that spare change be used on an alternative lens that you want? I have the 50MM 1.8 on my 50D and I love the photos I take with it. They are tack sharp and the bokeh is nice. I'm no pro nor do I have the 24-70mm so I can't give a good comparison of the two.
nothing wrong with the 50, it's an awesome and fast lens. the reason it's cheap is because it's simpler to manufacture and the basic design hasn't changed in decades. however, it's a fixed lens, which on your 50D is the equivalent of a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera. that's fine for portraiture but limited. the 24-70 is 36-105mm equivalent, big difference. but it's a big heavy lens and is slower, and as you said--> expensive. i have the nikon version and paid $1500. is it worth it? to me it is, it's really what your needs are and what your budget is. my lens performs as well as primes within that range, it's damn impressive.
Not really, especially considering he wants something longer than his 50mm. There are many pros that use the 70-200 for protraits on a full-frame so 85 isn't too long. It just depends on what you are going after.
sure, it all depends on what your going for, but i think 130mm is a weird length to be fixed at. i have a 10-20 and 24-70 and i shoot street and portraiture. i don't need anything longer but that's just me, everyone is different.
If you're looking for a lens in the 70-200 range, this is a Canon lens that gets good reviews and with IS built-in is a pretty decent deal : http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300m...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1241124934&sr=8-1
Anyone checked out the new Canon 7D? Really, sweet for shooting sports at 8 fps. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239 Runs about $1600. Most are saying it's an upgrade to the 50D, not the 5D or 5DMII.
That looks to be a fantastic camera. It's integrating pretty much everything that all the other Canons have and much more. Faster FPS than 5D. Less shutter lag. Slightly better video. Only thing missing is full frame. I have the 5DmarkII because I specifically wanted full frame. But otherwise this would have been an awesome camera. Especially for kids and sports photography.
I just bought a 50D about a month ago. I knew they would do that, but didn't want to wait. So now I'll have to try and grab one of those.
Full frame on the 5d MII is plus for me since I do a lot of indoor shots.....How are the low light capabilities of the D300?
Amazing. That price is competitive too. I was thinking the upgrade to the 50d would be $2000. Whew, awesome!
