Advice on next piece of kit

bartoszwozniak

bartoszwozniak

Messages
880
Name
Bartosz Wozniak
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok guys, I am looking for some advice as to what piece of kit I should buy next. I currently own 2 35mm film cameras (Zenit 12XP and Pentax S1a) with 4 M42 lenses (55mm f/2 SMC Takumar, Prinzflex 200mm f/3.5, Super - Takumar 28mm f/3.5 and a 30mm lens (not sure on the make, I would have to check).

I also own my main camera which is an EOS 40D with a couple of lenses and a flashgun (50mm f/1.8, the 55mm-250mm IS and my flashgun is a Yong Nuo one)

I also have accessories like filters, rocket blower, M42 converter for my 40D etc.

I am not sure what to save up for next?? I was thinking about the Tamron 90mm Di Macro f/2.8 or the Sigma 105mm macro. Or maybe a better walk around lens?

Advice would be very appreciated.

Thanks in advance!
 
If you don't know what you need then you probably don't need it. Why don't you go on holiday instead, or save for a rainy day :)
 
Well, I think that I will probably save it for now, however I do keep on catching myself changing lenses all the time, which is really annoying. A nice walkabout lens would be a treat.
 
Looks like you haven't got a standard kit zoom. If so, get the 18-55 IS - you will probably use it more than all the others put together. If you fancy macro, a Raynox DCR-250 works very well on the 55-250 and only costs £40 - great way to get started and it might be all you ever need.

Sorry to say, but I'm not sure what all that old film gear brings to the digital party these days.
 
HoppyUK said:
Looks like you haven't got a standard kit zoom. If so, get the 18-55 IS - you will probably use it more than all the others put together. If you fancy macro, a Raynox DCR-250 works very well on the 55-250 and only costs £40 - great way to get started and it might be all you ever need.

Sorry to say, but I'm not sure what all that old film gear brings to the digital party these days.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather buy quality glass rather than waste £40 on this junk, £40 on that doorstop and another £40 on this plastic throw-away. That junk loses value quickly and the costs add up to something fairly significant.

My view is to buy only a highly rated gear, that is in a high demand. Following the trends here Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a safe and a very capable purchase. If there is more cash then Canon 24-70mm is better.

Tamron 90mm is respectable lens, but for just a little bit more you could have Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro that is much nicer still. It has many advantages for bug hunting and anything that requires proper and silent AF without the extending front.

The m42 lenses seem to be the 'value' offerings from the old days. There is no reason why they wouldn't give excellent results stopped down a little to f/5.6 or f/8 (much better than the dreaded 18-55mm) but there is no AF, and there may be some other minor issues shooting wide open. Since you have them it doesn't matter, otherwise I'd say to look for something faster like 50mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/2. A dedicated focusing screen may be necessary.
 
daugirdas said:
I'd much rather buy quality glass rather than waste £40 on this junk, £40 on that doorstop and another £40 on this plastic throw-away. That junk loses value quickly and the costs add up to something fairly significant.

My view is to buy only a highly rated gear, that is in a high demand. Following the trends here Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a safe and a very capable purchase. If there is more cash then Canon 24-70mm is better.

Tamron 90mm is respectable lens, but for just a little bit more you could have Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro that is much nicer still. It has many advantages for bug hunting and anything that requires proper and silent AF without the extending front.

The m42 lenses seem to be the 'value' offerings from the old days. There is no reason why they wouldn't give excellent results stopped down a little to f/5.6 or f/8 (much better than the dreaded 18-55mm) but there is no AF, and there may be some other minor issues shooting wide open. Since you have them it doesn't matter, otherwise I'd say to look for something faster like 50mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/2. A dedicated focusing screen may be necessary.
Click to expand...

That's a point of view, but reading between the lines of the OP I didn't think a Canon 100 macro and 24-70L at a cost of £1,500 was on the cards.

On the other hand, the Canon kit zoom is terrific value and a Raynox DCR-250 is a fantastic buy for £40 and if it didn't suit, then it would sell on here within minutes for £25. That seems worth a punt, especially given what a Raynox can do with popular macro subjects.

Here's a few I prepared earlier, over 14,000 images all taken with the Raynox http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/ TBH, not all of them are mine ;)

Raynox is here - only £36! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-RADCR-0250-DCR-250/dp/B000A1SZ2Y
 
Well, I actually have more of daugirdas's approach, simply because I prefer to wait longer and get a quality piece of kit. I do indeed agree that the Canon 100mm macro is out of the question, because money is tight. But the tamron 17-50mm sounds a nice buy and I will look into that. As to the Raynox 250 - I think that I have had things like this (close up lenses and extension tubes) but they are just not the same as a true, macro lens.
 
bartoszwozniak said:
Well, I actually have more of daugirdas's approach, simply because I prefer to wait longer and get a quality piece of kit. I do indeed agree that the Canon 100mm macro is out of the question, because money is tight. But the tamron 17-50mm sounds a nice buy and I will look into that. As to the Raynox 250 - I think that I have had things like this (close up lenses and extension tubes) but they are just not the same as a true, macro lens.
Click to expand...

Haha! That's me told then ;)

Don't compare the Raynox to a close-up lens and tubes though. It's a well made 3-element design which performs far better than you might expect with popular macro subjects.
 
Haha! That's me told then

Don't compare the Raynox to a close-up lens and tubes though. It's a well made 3-element design which performs far better than you might expect with popular macro subjects.
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest you are beginning to convince me towards this raynox. I am just worried about the fact that the DOF it offers (very shallow I heard). Also with a macro lens I have the option to use it for other things as well not just for macro. With the raynox - its just dedicated to that one thing.
 
bartoszwozniak said:
Well, to be honest you are beginning to convince me towards this raynox. I am just worried about the fact that the DOF it offers (very shallow I heard). Also with a macro lens I have the option to use it for other things as well not just for macro. With the raynox - its just dedicated to that one thing.
Click to expand...

DoF is a function of magnification, regardless of the lens. You don't get any less with the Raynox.

The thing about macro is that, generally, it's actually not that demanding on lenses unless you shoot critical, flat subjects where edge detail is important - stamps, coins, documents - possibly at low f/numbers. That's when a pukka macro will shine.

But for most popular macro subjects, the subject is 3-dimensional and 90% of the frame is out of focus anyway, it is often around the centre where sharpness is always high, and you shoot at a high f/number to get more depth of field which further ensures a big reduction in lens aberrations.

The result of all that is the £40 Raynox delivers macro results that are IMHO way better than you might expect for the price. As shown on the Flickr link above. And it fits in a shirt pocket. Sure you can use a macro lens for other things, but you've already got that range covered.

The Raynox is designed to work best with a mid-range zoom so is an ideal match to your 55-250. Bottom line is it's less than forty quid so you can't go far wrong. There is also a DCR-150 version which is less strong and might be more suitable for slighly 'bigger macro' subjects like flowers and butterflies as opposed to bugs and beetles, but if you fit it to your zoom you have got a lot of flexibility on framing and distance there by changing focal length. That's another thing you can't do with a macro prime ;)

I'm not saying the Raynox is better than a pukka macro, but it is certainly both cheap and easy to use, and perhaps a lot better than you might expect :)
 
I have a funny feeling daugirdas has never actually used 18-55 'junk' before. its far from 'junk' and as has been said terrific value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top