What to buy next?

shabba

shabba

Messages
936
Edit My Images
No
Ok I have £100-150 coming my way which I didn’t expect, and I’d like to invest it into my photography kit – I appreciate this amount is not much but as I live on my own I don’t have much spare cash. I will list my current kit below, and wonder if you experts can recommend me anything that I really should have by now?

- Canon 40D
- Sigma 17-70mm
- Canon 50mm 1.8
- Sigma 70-300mm
- Canon 430EX flash gun with decent 2700mha batteries
- Spare battery
- 20gb of memory cards (inc a fast one)
- Perfect sized bag for my needs
- Gorilla pod
- 2x traditional tripods

I think a remote trigger would be a must buy? I’m not sure of the value of a battery grip, the Sigma 70-300mm is not a great lens I guess but a replacement would be £600+ I’d imagine (2.8 etc). A fisheye would be nice but it’s a luxury and expensive at £280+, not sure how much I’d use it. I guess the natural replacement for the Sigma 17-70 is a Canon 17-40 L lens, but they are £450+ used.

I rarely use a tripod so the ones I have will do, I can’t be lugging it round with me all the time. Memory cards are enough for me at present, same with batteries. I’m getting a polarizing filter soon I hope too.

Thing is I shoot everything and anything, I love it all, people, landscapes, buildings, cars, sports, animals and pets – literally anything I can point a lens at, although I don’t ever do Marco work.
 
BandyQuill said:
save the money till you know you need something...

i have a 'pot' of money that is just for camera bits and bobs, if the money isnt in the jar i cant get it, works well for things like memory cards if one breaks im not out of pocket :)
Click to expand...

You make a good point, I guess just put the money by the side for when its needed. Or towards kit in the future, I guess the weak link is the 70-300m? What is a better upgrade, I hired a 70-200mm Sigma 2.8 (£650 approx value) and it seemed a nice lens.
 
neil_g said:
available for conciderably less 2nd hand..
Click to expand...

Checked and you're spot on, odd as I find usually lenses tend to hold their value really well. mmm interesting stuff, the 70-300 must be worth £70, so maybe this is an idea.
 
shabba said:
Checked and you're spot on, odd as I find usually lenses tend to hold their value really well. mmm interesting stuff, the 70-300 must be worth £70, so maybe this is an idea.
Click to expand...

Could be something to save for then, with your £100-150 + what you could sell the 70-300 for, decisions, decisions :D

Personnaly, I think it's a great idea to put your money you weren't expecting to an upgrade :thumbs:
 
Get remote and a reflector. Shop around on ebay to get good prices. Last year I got HAMA wireless trigger for £4 - bargain!

Good tele can be over £350 2nd hand. That is 70-200mm f/4L. It is far sharper and better than any of the Sigmas. A fairly decent cheap alternative would be the old Canon 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. There is nothing like that on the new market anymore; and that lens can get 90-80% of what the L is capable of* (on crop), and it will blow Sigma 70-300 away.
 
neil_g said:
funny we've got 2 of the sigmas and both are razor sharp. they also have f2.8 which the canon doesnt ;)
Click to expand...

Funny I had used a *brand new* genuine Sigma 2.8 II and it was razor sharp at 70mm only. By 200mm it was poor. photozone.de test confirm my observations. My Canon is ultra razor sharp at all settings though at 200%, no soft focus nonsense.

" really?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CANON-EOS-70-2...nsesFilters_JN

This one yes?"

The same one. Get it if you can't afford the L.

Some samples from last year / 40D.
4901913988_4919d6c7ae_z.jpg


3814183907_8d1156532f_z.jpg


A bit of PP and they look great at 18x12" prints. Not an L, but 95% there.
 
This was with the Sigma 2.8 in a dark forrest at Goodwood. (damm tree).

I liked it, seemed a good lens, has real weight to it.

36096_396988207503_502107503_4325052_1036752_n.jpg


Im still learning so I appreciate its not the best image technically.
 
A cheap addition would be a diffuser for the flash, I've a sto-fen one and I think it was £10-£15.

I'd be tempted to put it into the pot for an upgrade to the sigma too though, something tells me you'd use the lens more.
 
Ah forgot to say that I already have a diffuser, but that is a great shout if I didn't, I use it all the time when using the flash generally.

Yes I use the 17-70 for 90% of my stuff, I should really use the 50mm more though.

Is the 17-40 L series the next logical upgrade from the Sigma 17-70?
 
shabba said:
Ah forgot to say that I already have a diffuser, but that is a great shout if I didn't, I use it all the time when using the flash generally.

Yes I use the 17-70 for 90% of my stuff, I should really use the 50mm more though.

Is the 17-40 L series the next logical upgrade from the Sigma 17-70?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know this too, I'm finding i'm using my 10-20mm very rarely now so could use that to fund a 17-40L & have been thinking about a step up from the 17-70...but is it really worth it?
 
Never tried a 17-40 L. But I had the Siggy 17-70 on my 40D. Loved it, light to use and very sharp. Great VFM.
 
my personal opinion (not being a canon shooter) is that the 70-210 will not be much better (if any) than the 70-300 you have.

Yes the 70-200 2.8 IS L is the holy grail of the canon fit 70-200's, though I mainly use Sigma lenses on my Pentax 17-70, 50-150 2.8 and 120-400............. all are as sharp as anything else I have tried.

Whoever suggested that all Sigma's are soft is taking rubbish............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top