What to buy????

[parrotmomma]

I want to use part of my tax refund to buy "Something" but I am not sure what that "something" should be. I am thinking a new lens, but not sure which lens to buy? I have a 50d, and my lenses are... Tamron 18-270, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 50 2.8 macro. I have been thinking of the Canon 50 1.4? I mostly take photos of landscapes, and nature. I have $500. to $1000. to spend. I am going to Yellowstone in July, and I'll be taking everything with me.

[biggin]

500ish
Canon 70-200L F4
Tamron 28-70
I would go Sigma 501.4 if you wanted to go that route...
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro

A bit above 500
Sigma 70-200mm (I have been reading good things about this)

1000ish
Canon 28-70L
Canon 70-200L 2.8 non-is
Canon 70-200L 4 is
Canon 100mm L 2.8 Macro
Canon 300mm 4
Canon 400mm 5.6

Those would be my choices...

[venchka]

Rent something reallly long for Yellowstone. Canon 500mm would be perfect. Get a really sturdy tripod to hold it. Enjoy.
Lenses to buy:
Canon 100mm. They make 3. Pick one.
Canon 35/2.0.
Canon 24-105.
Canon 400/5.6
Sigma 30 or 50/1.4

[zachary]

I just bought a 200mm 3.5 prime lens for my sears. Vivitar Series 1. All metal lens. No plastic to be found.

$16 on KEH.

[auddii]

A savings account?

A macro might be fun for your trip - makes you look at the park in a whole new way!

[CtrlAltDel]

I would shoot for your first "L" quality lens. I had the newest (as of last year) Tamron 18-270 which I liked but now that I have the L series lenses, I will never go back. WOW they are fantastic! I like the post about renting lenses too! I think that would be a great idea.

[venchka]

From experience in Yellowstone.........

A 24-70 and/or 35-105 will handle geysers, scenery & some wildlife in Yellowstone. 400mm to 800mm for other wildlife. It's possible to get too close to the wildlife and geysers in Yellowstone.

EDIT: Close-ups are always nice.

[parrotmomma]

Thanks for all the input! Since I have it covered from 10 to 270, I wasn't sure about buying another lens within that range, except for something faster? And I have macro in the 50 mm 2.8. That's why I wondered about the 55 1.4? I would love to have L lenses, but they are so expensive..... Am I really going to have my socks knocked off if I invest in say, the 24-70 or 24-105? I do have a tripod already.

Wayne, we were in YS 2 years ago, and I could not believe how close the animals were! We stayed a safe distance away, but I was amazed by some of the idiots who were right up the animals butts. A park ranger told us that once, she had to rescue a kid from his father, who was posing the kid on the back of a buffalo!

[jfoureyes]

It don't look like you need anything... You could contribute to my Nikon D3X fund and all donations are truly appreciated..

[venchka]

I may have been one of those folks up the animal's butts.
My list is aimed at getting you away from zoom lenses. While I own 5 50mm lenses, you don't need to go down that slippery slope. Use the 50 you have. Add something different that you don't have. Hence the 35 and\or 100 f/2.
Sent from my LeicaBerry with tapathumbs.

[biggin]

I really like the 24-70L... especially on the cropped sensor. Not as big of a fan of the 24-105... Maybe also that I have the Tamron and enjoy it.

I vastly prefer primes the 30mm is a great option.

You might try renting the lens you are looking at for a weekend, it is pretty cheap and will let you know if you are making the right choice.

Originally Posted by parrotmomma

Thanks for all the input! Since I have it covered from 10 to 270, I wasn't sure about buying another lens within that range, except for something faster? And I have macro in the 50 mm 2.8. That's why I wondered about the 55 1.4? I would love to have L lenses, but they are so expensive..... Am I really going to have my socks knocked off if I invest in say, the 24-70 or 24-105? I do have a tripod already.

Wayne, we were in YS 2 years ago, and I could not believe how close the animals were! We stayed a safe distance away, but I was amazed by some of the idiots who were right up the animals butts. A park ranger told us that once, she had to rescue a kid from his father, who was posing the kid on the back of a buffalo!

[venchka]

Originally Posted by venchka

Rent something reallly long for Yellowstone. Canon 500mm would be perfect. Get a really sturdy tripod to hold it. Enjoy.
Lenses to buy:
Canon 100mm. They make 3. Pick one.
Canon 35/2.0.
Canon 24-105.
Canon 400/5.6
Sigma 30 or 50/1.4

BINGO

Random new prices found in 30 seconds with GOOGLE.
Canon 35/2.0 $319
Canon 100/2.0 $475
Canon 500/4.0 IS 1 week rental $256
Total: $1,050.
35-50-100 makes a nice prime lens set up.

[shnitz]

I wouldn't say that you have the 18-270 "covered" because you have that Tamron. If you saw the image difference between that lens and ANY of Canon's L 70-200's, your jaw would drop.

Posts #2 and #3 are pretty spot on. Upgrade your glass in your current range so that you can get some better pictures. I would add, that if you don't mind a mild telephoto, Tamron's 180mm f/3.5 macro is amazing. Image-quality wise, at least here in Nikon land, I haven't seen anything better. Walk around a park with your Tamron, and really look at the focal length range that you're going to use. Of course, if you're happy with your 10-20 for wide angle, your 50mm for that focal length and for macro work, then some sort of telephoto is your best bet.

[parrotmomma]

Sigh. I am getting the impression that I probably shouldn't have bought the Tamron! I will admit that the images are not as tack-sharp as I would like them to be. I know many of you don't like zoom lenses, but I'm not exactly sure why? Would I be wise to invest in the Canon 24-70 or 24-105 L lenses? I find that I don't zoom out past 200 very often, and most of the time if I do zoom in, I am in the 100 range. If were to get one of the above mentioned L lenses, which one would be the best? The 24-70 is faster, but the 24-105 would give me more reach. I don't want to make another expensive mistake!!

[brewercm]

I have the 18-270 and it's my vacation lens. I don't want to carry a butt load of equipment so I take it along with my Tamron 28-75 2.8 (which is used 90% of time). May also take my 50 1.4 just in case I need something with that low of light usage. All my other lenses stay at home unless it's one of those trips specifically for photographing things.

Not sure if that makes since to you but that's just my thinking. Sure don't want to lug around a 70-200 while on vacation. Here's an example of what the 18-270 did for me on a recent vacation to Las Vegas while going to the Dam. Not too shabby for a handheld shot, but I’ll admit this lens isn’t very good in low light.