Help me spend my hard earned money!!

M

mc_mclovin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
35
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys n girls.....slightly misleading title, money wasn't hard earned!! Haha. But still, would like your input.

I have a £1000 to spend, could maybe stretch to £1200.

Current kit is;

Canon 40d
18-55 kit lens
55-250 efs is lens
50mm 1.8 prime
Nissin di622 mk2

So, bearing in mind the above, how would you spend the money? Am interested in most kinds of photography (portrait/landscape/macro/wildlife etc)

So, was thinking a macro lens, but not sure which one.
Maybe upgrading the flash and kit lens.

So if it was your money and you had the above kit, how would you spend it?

Thanks in advance for your input.
 
Drop the kit lens and get a 17-50mm f2.8?
 
Cheers Simon. Was looking at the 70-200 f4l, guess I could trade in the 55-250. Will I miss the IS do you think?

Also with the 24-70L any idea how the sigma 24-70 2.8 ex dg compares? Seen this second hand for just over £200 today.
 
What do you take photos of most?

It might help split your budget better.

I'm thinking replace the kit lens 1st for:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or canon 17-55 or possible canon 15-85 as it might be the lens that gets the most use :shrug:

Other great lens to think about:

Sigma 10-20 for landscapes
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro or sigma 105
Canon 70-200 F4 all round zoom
Sigma 50-500 for wildlife

It all comes down to what you take photos of most or the type you want to take going forward.

2nd hand lens can save you quite a few £.
 
From examples i've seen the Canon Will obviously blow the Sigma version out of the water. Hence the price difference :) If you want to save money then by all means get the Sigma, but the Canon is where its at :) And the Canon will last an Age :)

Alternatively if you want to do more landscapes a seonc hand 17-40 f/4 L will be much cheaper leaving some cash to get filters/ tripods ect.
 
17-40 is not very wide on a 40d crop body.

10-22 canon or 10-20 sigma might be a beter choice for landscapes on a 40d
 
Cheers Simon....so much choice! And most of it out of my price range!

I already have some filters (cir polariser and a couple of cokin grads) and a tripod and monopod. Sorry, should've mentioned that I guess!

I've just checked out the 17-50 2.8 tamron that tris mentioned, looks good actually.

So how bout this, factoring in maybe £150 for trading in the two zooms I already have..

Used 70-200 f4L is....800
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc...350
used 430ex mk2...169

Which is just over 1300 quid, so pushing the budget a touch..guess it depends on the trade value of my current lenses.

Cheers for all your input guys, am quite new here, and am loving the wealth of information being shared.
 
70-200 f4L is....800 Whut? Your looking at the IS model mate :)

The 70-200 f4L is like 400 NEW From Jessops :) In my mind the IS isn't worth it...

There is also the Sigma 70-200 1.8 OS for around 600 i think :)
 
Yeah, I meant the IS version, this non IS version is £520 new in Jessops....guess its alot to pay for image stabilisation, but surely in low light it would enable me to keep the iso that bit lower...therefore might be worth it! Bearing in mind my 40d doesn't match up with newer cameras in high iso performance.
 
Hmm yeah i guess, depends how often you shoot in Lower light. However it is a stop or so faster than your current 55-250!

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS may be a better choice at the same-ish price?
 
You might be right there, if I can find one secondhand, it's a grand new! Which would be my budget in 1 hit!

Maybe I should go check my euro millions ticket! Lol
 
yeah! Although at the 2.8 you may not need the IS at all as it is alot faster than the 55-250 :)
 
mc_mclovin said:
Cheers Simon....so much choice! And most of it out of my price range!

I already have some filters (cir polariser and a couple of cokin grads) and a tripod and monopod. Sorry, should've mentioned that I guess!

I've just checked out the 17-50 2.8 tamron that tris mentioned, looks good actually.

So how bout this, factoring in maybe £150 for trading in the two zooms I already have..

Used 70-200 f4L is....800
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc...350
used 430ex mk2...169

Which is just over 1300 quid, so pushing the budget a touch..guess it depends on the trade value of my current lenses.

Cheers for all your input guys, am quite new here, and am loving the wealth of information being shared.
Click to expand...

a new canon 70-200 f4 IS is around £900 2nd hand they are around £650-750

The non IS can be a very good choice too if you can live without IS. The NON IS is around £500 new or £375-440 2nd hand.

The Tamron 17-50 is also avalible VC and non VC most say the non VC is better and cheaper £260 new or £200 2nd hand. I have a VC and realy like it.

Both the sigma 10-20 and tamron 90mm macro are realy great lens too.
 
Last edited:
@tris

Cheers, appreciate the input.

So been an spent some of the budget today. Decided on the 15-85 canon...think I got a good price, £450 brand new!

Just one more thing, can you suggest a good place to buy used equipment from online?
 
mc_mclovin said:
@tris

Cheers, appreciate the input.

So been an spent some of the budget today. Decided on the 15-85 canon...think I got a good price, £450 brand new!

Just one more thing, can you suggest a good place to buy used equipment from online?
Click to expand...

The best general purpose outdoor lens you can get for a crop Canon I'd say, its only real weakness is taking pics of moving subjects in low light.

MPB have a IDs mk2 used for £1300, just to tempt you. :D
 
I'll have a gander at mbp then guys, thanks for the recommendation.

So looks like I made a good choice, can notice the difference in quality straight away over the kit lens.

I wish, not sure the pocket or the wife would be too happen about another £1300 disappearing!! Thinking I'll stick to one more lens....decisions decisions!
 
I've just bought the efs 17-55 IS USM f2.8
what a beast of a lens
read all the technical reviews I could find before I selected this monster
 
mc_mclovin said:
Yeah, I meant the IS version, this non IS version is £520 new in Jessops....guess its alot to pay for image stabilisation
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out many-a-time, the IS version isn't just the same lens with stabilisation - it's sharper, weather sealed and has circular aperture blades.
 
Moreorless said:
The best general purpose outdoor lens you can get for a crop Canon I'd say, its only real weakness is taking pics of moving subjects in low light.

MPB have a IDs mk2 used for £1300, just to tempt you. :D
Click to expand...

great body, but without glass?! (presuming that would use all budget)

70-200 f/4 is awesome even without IS. If you can add IS even better but it's easy to manage without with a bit of care.

for flash i'd really get cheap 430 mk1 on ebay. there is no good reason whatsoever to spend double for mk2 - and they are much harder to put to slave mode when you do off camera lighting.

tamron 17-50 is great, 17-40 is also nice on crop if you need some weather sealing. I'd avoid 24-70mm for now unless you intend to go FF, particularly avoid Sigma version.
 
daugirdas said:
great body, but without glass?! (presuming that would use all budget)

70-200 f/4 is awesome even without IS. If you can add IS even better but it's easy to manage without with a bit of care.
Click to expand...


I have the f/4 and i wish i had got the IS model. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Luckily i get paid every month and will eventually go for the f/2.8 IS model in a few months.
 
@vertigo...

Thanks for that info, I actually had no idea that was the case. In which case I'll definitely wait and save abit extra, so I can afford the IS version.
 
@andyred.

I got it from a local indie dealer (east midlands) the box was damaged so it was cheaper, and I bartered him down abit too, cause I paid cash. Didn't realise quite how much of a bargain I'd got until I checked warehouse express when I got home!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top