Flashguns.. never been around them...& more

P

P-Chan

Messages
429
Name
Ramon
Edit My Images
Yes
Any reco's for a flashgun to go with 500D cheap of course. Never used one myself. Are they easy to use?


Wanting to upgrade my kit lens into eitehr the 17-40L. Im interested in the 40 end not 17. I know that used on crop cameras the 40mm will be like taking at what?....

the flash gun is to be used together with this lens above


or the more expensive

17-55 IS 2.8

55 is great range and good lens but a bit on the + side price but attenable somehow. Not the least bothered about water proofing of L's. My body aint waterproof anyway and hardly ever rains here anyway


My wanting this upgrade is both my bros are in established bands and would love start taking some decent photos for them and bands. This of course would open me some doors like photo passes in their gigs eventually in bigger gigs or even better with some international performances. I know they will open up for some really big gigs coming summer and I really want to be ready to go by that time
 
IS does make a difference depending on what you shoot. I use the 24-105 and it's a top lens.

There are other options. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and 28-75 f2,8 are both excellent lenses too.

Re flash, 580EX or 430EX
 
mentioning the 24-105mm L makes me think why having a 17-55 IS non L at the same price.

Its a nice upgrade for the kit lens a 24-105 L would be an overkill and really big time streching money wise at close to a K

430EX is what Im going for flash wise thanks guys. Now lens wise.

the 17-55 2.8 would still need a flash gun I understand. the 2.8 is good for failing light not for when its dark. Right?
 
If you're looking at gigs then although the 24-105 is a cracking lens, the f4 aperture isn't really ideal. Maybe a tamron 17-50 2.8 and a fast prime?
 
tamron comes at a fraction one can say of the canon same range 2.8. Glass wise and IQ are they the same or tamron inferor? experience has thought me not to go for the obvouisly cheaper lens which I would sell after a month with a great loss to get me the proper thing. And Tamron is screamimg history repeat
 
THe tamron lenses are very good. Look for the reviews - but as with all lenses there's good and bad. If you want to ensure the ighest quality, Canon is prrobably the way to go but the Tamron lenses are very good and if you go to a reputable dealer you could try before you buy.

I can only say good things about the 28-70 f2.8 although it's relegated to backup after I biught a 24-105 f4L IS canon lens. AF speed (even at f4) is faster.
 
430EX - buying a heap of these for our works kits: powerful, flexible and half the price (nearly) of a 580EX. Good piece of kit....

A guy at work has just bought a 24-105mm f/4 for his 7D and it's a nice lens - sharp, well made with a good zoom reach – but on a crop sensor it's an awkward set of focal lengths because there's nothing there for more scenics shots where you're tight in.

I know you're said the wide end of a zoom doesn't interest but remember a 17mm lens will equate to something like 27mm on your body, which isn't that wide - I think it's better to have the wide end and not use it that much than be left wanting later on.

Why not go with a 17-50mm Tamron f/2.8 (I use one - excellent lens if a little noisey) or the 28-75mm Tammy? Tokina also dow a 16-50mm f/2.8, so good for low light.

On the issue of whether Tamron are any good - I use one for magazine shoots. I've had countless covers shot on my 17-50mm, which I bought used off fleabay for £160 and it's never let me down. Focussing is fast and precise, the build quality is good and the IQ is as good as that 24-105 f/4, which is four times the price. There's a VC version out now, although without the VC it's a compact lens, nice and light and easy to handhold. Probably the only thing I wish mine had was a focus ring that deactivated in AF - if you try turning the manual focus ring, say while you're supporting the lens, you're actually turning against the motor, which brings some interesting noises.
 
tnx for the advise specialman.

My main interest in lens is the uber expensive 17-55 canon 2.8. I read and reread its a very good pice of glass. If the tamron comes close then its def a huge bonus. I already went through but cheap, buy twice and really dont wanna go through it again. I told my gf today that im after a new lens and she went balistic. Im pretty much dead if tamron dont give me what Im wanting or if I end up with a faulty copy. (same fear I have in buying sigma)
 
P-Chan, I hear you. It's definitely best to try before you buy if you can. The Canon 17-55 is a good lens, no doubt, and it's probably worth buying if you have the money. If it's not in your price range (like the Nikon 17-55 isn't in mine) then I think the general concensus is that the Tamron is the second choice.

Have you looked at the 24-70mm f/2.8 Canon? That's is a brilliant, brilliant lens, although it's pricey (£1,000) but optically it's a peach.

Here's a link to a shot I did on the Tamron for a mag cover - linky
 
Flashguns, are venues likely to let you use one?

Lenses, you could also consider a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 as a fallback, perhaps the canon or sigma 10-22/10-20.
 
canon or sigma UWA like 10-22 are for scenery not people pics like gigs.

as for nifty fifty never found a reason why for that lens. Why stuck on 50 when u could have 17-55 or 24-105 and so on? all them lenses have 50 in them
 
24-105 is F4 constant. 50mm 1.4 gives you the option to lower the iso, so less noise at a dark gig.

And depends where the gig is. If it's in a small pub/club, you might need a wide lens on a 1.6 crop camera.
 
gigs general photos according to you which would u choose.

10-22 or the 17-55 2.8 ?

Personally eventually ill have them both. Was aiming for 10-22 in a couple months but somehow ended up again taking a back seat in favour of teh 17-55
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top