# Collecting gear



## mcragg9 (Mar 9, 2014)

I am getting more into photography and am purchasing more gear. I have a T3i and a couple lenses that came with it which are nothing special. Plus the cheapest canon 40 mm. I am wondering if I should invest toward a flash, some external flashes and wireless receivers or save up for a nicer lens. Any advice or thoughts would be helpful.


----------



## ninjapeps (Mar 9, 2014)

It all depends on what you like to shoot. If you already have more than one lens, maybe a flash would be the best option unless your primary subject is landscape.


----------



## abcde12345 (Mar 9, 2014)

A fast lens first might be wise. Lack of flash might be crucial for portraiture at times, but lack of a fast lens... you want that the moment you get a DSLR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 9, 2014)

Don't 'collect gear'. Figure out what you need to do that you can't with your current gear, then get what addresses that gap.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don't 'collect gear'. Figure out what you need to do that you can't with your current gear, then get what addresses that gap.



Exactly! There was another thread I was going to post in before this one caught my eye. In that thread I was going to say that my photography teacher asks questions from the reading as a form of taking attendance and he'll spring funny questions to lighten things up like - how many lenses are enough for a photographer.

The "correct" answer is "just one more..." you're always going to want another one.

But, to buy up stuff just because you're a collector and not knowing how or why to use some of the equipment doesn't seem to make sense to me. Buy one thing at a time, use the heck out of it and enjoy it. If you come up with a need, then go shopping for something else - or if you see something new and cool see if you have a need for it.


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don't 'collect gear'. Figure out what you need to do that you can't with your current gear, then get what addresses that gap.
> ...


For starters get a 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 16-35 2.8L II, TS-E 17 L, TS-E 24 II L, 85 1.2L II, 35 1.4L, 135 2L, 100 2.8L IS Macro, 300 2.8L IS II, 500 4L IS II, 1.4XIII, 2XIII, 8-15 4L, then step back, relax, use them and decide what you need more... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 9, 2014)

tron said:


> EricFiskCGD said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


You accomplished the feat of toasting thousands of dollars in camera gear without any redundancy.  It's good for me to forget that I read your suggestion.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 9, 2014)

tron said:


> For starters get a 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 16-35 2.8L II, TS-E 17 L, TS-E 24 II L, 85 1.2L II, 35 1.4L, 135 2L, 100 2.8L IS Macro, 300 2.8L IS II, 500 4L IS II, 1.4XIII, 2XIII, 8-15 4L, then step back, relax, use them and decide what you need more... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



You reminded me of a dude, Dylan777 ;D ;D ;D

+1 with Neuro and others - "Don't 'collect gear'. Figure out what you need to do that you can't with your current gear, then get what addresses that gap"


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > For starters get a 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 16-35 2.8L II, TS-E 17 L, TS-E 24 II L, 85 1.2L II, 35 1.4L, 135 2L, 100 2.8L IS Macro, 300 2.8L IS II, 500 4L IS II, 1.4XIII, 2XIII, 8-15 4L, then step back, relax, use them and decide what you need more... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
> ...


Hmmm, which lens addresses your ... "gap"? The 600mm f/4L IS II or the 200-400 L ? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don't 'collect gear'. Figure out what you need to do that you can't with your current gear, then get what addresses that gap.


+1. This is a question that pops up repeatedly so I thought I'd chip in with a more detailed response and share my thoughts... Sometimes gear isn't needed at all, but rather knowledge. In order of importance: Knowledge/Training, Lighting, Lenses, Bodies

Photography is creating an image using light. Understanding and being able to craft light is the most important thing in photography. Skillful use of a cheap body and kit lens and "good light" will produce better results than a $6000 body with a $4000 lens in "bad light".

That being said, you should look at equipment purchases as investments. You are investing in something that can influence the quality or existence of your final images, whether that investment is in training, lighting equipment, lenses or a body.
_e.g. Wider aperture lenses could offer faster AF which could mean the difference between getting a shot at a critical moment vs missing the shot.
_
Another factor to consider is that a lens with good optics can hold its value better than a lens that is bad optically. 
_e.g. Something like say the 100mm f/2.8 L IS will hold its value over time whereas you might not be able to sell a poor quality lens down the line to fund upgrades, because there is little demand for a weak-performance 2nd-hand lens._

The third factor I'd mention is that having more equipment leads to higher insurance premiums. So you should assess every [however often] to see what equipment is actually bringing in the money/the-shots-you-want vs just sitting in a closet leaching away your money in insurance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > EricFiskCGD said:
> ...



I'd argue that, the 17TS-E and 1.4 TC make the 24 TS-E close to redundant, and the 135 f2 and 100 Macro L are so similar I've yet to meet anybody that can reliably distinguish between images shot with either.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Mar 10, 2014)

I'd consider a copy of Lightroom at this point; the lens profiles work well and the more distortion you have the more it does for you. At $150 (or less at B&H in a bundle with many things) it is a lot of value. It's one thing you can use with anything from an SL1 and a plastic fantastic to a 1Dx and whatever lens you'd care to consider.

Food for thought, and this is definitely only my opinion - priced accordingly!

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd argue that...the 135 f2 and 100 Macro L are so similar I've yet to meet anybody that can reliably distinguish between images shot with either.


Which of those two lenses do you think was used for this shot?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd argue that...the 135 f2 and 100 Macro L are so similar I've yet to meet anybody that can reliably distinguish between images shot with either.
> ...



Er the 600 with a 1.4 

I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.

As you, I do a lot of research before buying a lens after deciding I need one, I travel a lot so whilst having one of everything might be a nice idea (principally to a collector  ) it is generally impractical. My research, specifically with regards actual resultant images, pointed me to get the 17TS-E (and a 1.4 TC) and the 100L Macro, even though I shot with a 135 f2 for many years in the manual focus FD system.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd argue that...the 135 f2 and 100 Macro L are so similar I've yet to meet anybody that can reliably distinguish between images shot with either.
> ...



EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/40 s, f/8, ISO 100, handheld 430EX II via OC-E3


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2014)

tolusina said:


> EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/40 s, f/8, ISO 100, handheld 430EX II via OC-E3



Now that's cheating…


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.
> 
> As you, I do a lot of research before buying a lens after deciding I need one, I travel a lot so whilst having one of everything might be a nice idea (principally to a collector  ) it is generally impractical. My research, specifically with regards actual resultant images, pointed me to get the 17TS-E (and a 1.4 TC) and the 100L Macro, even though I shot with a 135 f2 for many years in the manual focus FD system.



At the time I bought the TS-E 24L II, there was no convenient filter system for the 17mm version (e.g., the Wonderpana that's now available), so having front threads was a significant differentiator for me. For tilt aficionados, the 24mm offers an extra 2° (8.5° vs. 6.5° max tilt). I might pick up a TS-E 17mm at some point...

I find the 135L to have a significant advantage for shooting action in low light (e.g. gymnasiums) - the extra stop and faster AF make a noticeable difference in the resulting images. But for portrait use, I agree that the 100L does just fine.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.
> ...



Agreed re both points re tse and the two tele lenses.

Beyond the advantages of focus speed and low light shooting, the DOF at 135/2 is something that the 100L can't touch in any lighting at any time and place. Like Neuro said, if all you are doing is portraiture in a controlled setting and you don't want/need f2, then the two lenses would be potentially very redundant. Otherwise, they are two completely different lenses generally used for two very different things (especially for people that have both).


----------



## tolusina (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/40 s, f/8, ISO 100, handheld 430EX II via OC-E3
> ...


I do what I can.........


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't word that very well did I? Nothing new there. What I meant was if you have the 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC there is very little practical need for a 24 TS-E, and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2.
> ...



Oh I agree there are differentiators that make one choice more compelling than the other in each case, I am sure there are some happy 800mm owners out there even though the 600 and 1.4 is a "better" lens at 840. But those differentiators become far less about IQ and more to do with functionality or specific user applications.

As for the extra tilt on the 24, well it needs it, with focal length being a function of the tilt required the 17's 6.5º tilt actually gives you a shorter J distance than the 24's 8.5º. What is comparatively limiting is the 90mm TS-E with a mere 8º of tilt.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> As for the extra tilt on the 24, *well it needs it*, with focal length being a function of the tilt required the 17's 6.5º tilt actually gives you a shorter J distance than the 24's 8.5º.



Exactly - putting a 1.4x TC behind the TS-E 17mm gives you a 24mm lens with only 6.5° of tilt.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> .....the DOF at 135/2 is something that the 100L can't touch in any lighting at any time and place.....



John, with respect, that just isn't true. 

We had a very acrimonious thread (from which I believe many posts went astray) on those two lenses, I actually posted examples from both wide open and not one person correctly identified the images, even very vocal f2 users. Sure if you take two images at the same time from the same place it is easy to tell, but use both on the same shoot naturally and it isn't, use both to their full advantage in different scenarios and it becomes impossible.

Faster focus for sports: 135.
IS for lower light or shutter speeds: 100.
Maximum light gathering potential: 135.
Close focusing: 100.

But these are not IQ differences, they are functionality differences or user requirements.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As for the extra tilt on the 24, *well it needs it*, with focal length being a function of the tilt required the 17's 6.5º tilt actually gives you a shorter J distance than the 24's 8.5º.
> ...



Ah. You are so much smarter than me.........


----------



## BL (Mar 10, 2014)

There's one CR forum poster (can't remember the acct name atm) who has a profile comment that says "5% of the gear used 95% of the time."

So true...


----------



## BLFPhoto (Mar 10, 2014)

"and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2."


Clearly you've never tried to shoot sports or active situations with the 100mm L macro. The difference in usability between it and the 135 L in such situations is night and day. The focus limiter on the 100mm L macro only really serves to make it suitable for less active, non-macro shooting. 

And if shooting wide open for the same subject framing, the 135 L will do a far better job of dropping out the background if a shot requires it. 

It's a matter of horses for courses. I currently have both lenses. I can name several specific applications for both lenses where the choice of tool is unequivocal.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 10, 2014)

Back to the original question - buy a new (fill in the blank) when you need it. Many an excellent photographer 
uses only one lens, but they use it incredibly well. A standard camera package for many years was the body
and a 50mm lens. Adventuresome types added a 35mm and/or a 90mm or135mm to meet their new needs. 
In there somewhere was a flash and a tripod - again depending upon the "need" to overcome some limitation in
a shooting situation. A Rebel with the standard 18-55 zoom and a 55-250 telephoto can effectively handle most
peoples' "requirements" and in some cases it could be argued a better "travelling" combination than a 5DIII with
the 24-70L and 70/200L grouping - especially if you have to walk long distances. No one but you can answer your question for you. Good luck!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> "and if you have the 100 L Macro there is little practical need for the 135 f2."
> 
> 
> Clearly you've never tried to shoot sports or active situations with the 100mm L macro. The difference in usability between it and the 135 L in such situations is night and day. The focus limiter on the 100mm L macro only really serves to make it suitable for less active, non-macro shooting.
> ...



No that is not what I said. The premise of the side conversation was overlapping functionality, the idea was that the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII was also owned, with that in mind were I shooting a low light sports event I'd use the zoom, which focuses every bit as fast as the 135, and, with a newer body faster and more accurately, it is rare that the iso absolutely can't be upped one stop to get the shot (especially nowadays) and the 2.8 makes it more likely your subject will actually still be in focus when the exposure is actually taken.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> At the time I bought the TS-E 24L II, there was no convenient filter system for the 17mm version (e.g., the Wonderpana that's now available), so having front threads was a significant differentiator for me. For tilt aficionados, the 24mm offers an extra 2° (8.5° vs. 6.5° max tilt). I might pick up a TS-E 17mm at some point...
> 
> I find the 135L to have a significant advantage for shooting action in low light (e.g. gymnasiums) - the extra stop and faster AF make a noticeable difference in the resulting images. But for portrait use, I agree that the 100L does just fine.


I was in the exact same predicament RE: 17 vs 24mm and came to the same decision. Also TS-E 17mm is top of my wishlist of currently available equipment. ;D



privatebydesign said:


> I'd argue that, the 17TS-E and 1.4 TC make the 24 TS-E close to redundant, and the 135 f2 and 100 Macro L are so similar I've yet to meet anybody that can reliably distinguish between images shot with either.


Many real estate shooters use both the TS-E 17 and 24mm. While the 17mm is a phenomenal lens it is not perfect. When you put on a TC the image degrades and you lose 1 stop of light so while you might get 24mm focal length you most certainly do not get a TS-E 24mm f/3.5 II. 

Difference in IQ between *TS-E 17mm with 1.4x-III* and *TS-E 24mm II* is not negligible. Just take a look at sample crops...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=487&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

In terms of extending the 17mm, I would think that you'd probably be better off putting it on a crop body to retain your f/4 max aperture and avoid TC-IQ-degradation but then as side effects you'd be closer to 28mm and you'd lose some high-ISO noise performance.


----------



## aussielearner (Mar 10, 2014)

What are you taking pictures of? 2 years ago I started off with a Canon 20D purchased from eBay. I bought a 50mm f1.8 and a 28-105mm f3.5-4.5

I purchased my first dSLR soon after the birth of my first child as I was finding my Powershot G6 just wasn't cutting it for me any more.

I still wasn't happy with my pictures from the 50mm f1.8 (most of them were indoor shots of a baby, portraits of family holding the baby). It wasn't until I purchased a Speedlite 430 EXII that my pictures suddenly transformed. By using bounce flash I was able to light my subjects more evenly and use higher shutter speeds.

This was the single greatest purchase that improved my photography at the time.

In the last 6 months I've sold the 28-105 (it isn't great for indoor photography and is a bit soft on my equipment) and gotten myself a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and upgraded to a Canon 40D.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 10, 2014)

aussielearner said:


> In the last 6 months I've sold the 28-105 (it isn't great for indoor photography and is a bit soft on my equipment) and gotten myself a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and upgraded to a Canon 40D.



Ahhhh, the wonderful and sweet *40D*! Love that camera! Love it! May it serve you well for a long time to come my friend!! Heck, while you're at it, you should find a great and wonderful *5D Classic* while you're at it. Another amazing body for a great price now!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd argue that, the 17TS-E and 1.4 TC make the 24 TS-E close to redundant, and the 135 f2 and 100 Macro L are so similar I've yet to meet anybody that can reliably distinguish between images shot with either.
> ...



Well I know a lot of real estate photographers and I don't know one with the two TS-E's, heck I am unusual in my market, $500k - $2M with the 17. Those that are considering gear purchases are looking at video and this seasons darling, UAV's.

As for the IQ, well it falls into the how much is good enough, firstly I don't think the linked comparison is a good one, Bryan didn't get a good combo for that test, however, my main RE customer is a multi million dollar developer, they regularly make posters and high end printed literature out of my 17 and 1.4 TC images so the IQ is pretty stellar and it is certainly better than the MkI 24 TS-E by itself and we used those for years without complaint. Retaining f4 really isn't a factor for anything but artistic uses and I haven't done comparisons of the 17 plus 1.4 against naked on my EOS-M, maybe next time I am out with it all, I wouldn't think iso is an issue either, after all to get the best out of the TS-E's you have to use a tripod.


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 11, 2014)

i don´t know if that is scientific proven but most collectors have a litte mental problem in my experience. something is missing in their lives so they have to fill it with things. thought nobody will admit this.

i guess it´s a mild version of hoarding.

my motto: is what you own, owns you.

so i only buy and keep what i need.
if something is not usefull for me, i sell it on ebay.

the only things i, kind of, collect are books. 
but only the books i know i read again and again.
most books are sold on ebay too after i read them once.

i really think that some photogs have a problem with acquiring and collecting gear.

we joke about it .. call it GAS.
but imho it´s a mild version of a mental illness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> i don´t know if that is scientific proven but most collectors have a litte mental problem in my experience. something is missing in their lives so they have to fill it with things. thought nobody will admit this.
> 
> i guess it´s a mild version of hoarding.
> 
> ...



I think collecting camera gear, new or old, is as valid a hobby as photography, sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. The only thing that bugs me is when collectors start lecturing photographers about what gear they need because of a review, a test page somewhere, or some irrelevant minuitie. Maybe posters should be classed, i think my advice is always bad for collectors, but generally pragmatic and based on user experience for photographers. But it is always worth what you paid for it


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 14, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> i don´t know if that is scientific proven but most collectors have a litte mental problem in my experience. something is missing in their lives so they have to fill it with things. thought nobody will admit this.



I have no problems admitting it.


----------



## Rams_eos (Mar 19, 2014)

Just to share my experience.
I acquired the T3i 18-55 two years ago and started to “collect” lenses.
I first went to the 70-200 F4L mainly because I wanted high quality and the size does match very well the camera.
The image quality is just excellent .
But if I would do it again, I would go for the 70-300L as you never get enough reach .
I considered the EFS 17-55 F 2.8 which I tried and is extremely good, but after spending too many time on this addicting forum, I thought I would go Full Frame at some point (I just received my new 6D last week).
My next lens was the Macro 100 F2.8 L IS. I thought the 70-200 was sharp but this one is just answome. Very good purchase .
I also have the Shorty Forty and I love it with the T3i as a walk around. You can’t get sharper for 149$. With it, I use Microsoft ICE for Landscape and I am very happy with results.
I try to avoid GAS (see other thread) but visiting this forum help in deciding what I need.
So, as some mention, think about what you shoot and select the tools for that.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 19, 2014)

Rams_eos said:


> I try to avoid GAS (see other thread) but visiting this forum help in deciding what I need.



Gear Aquisition Syndrome - GAS


----------

