Photogeeks -- share your rig?
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:05 am
I'm curious: what camera bodies and lenses do you own? Which body and lens combination(s) do you use the most? What is your primary use for it (hobby general, semi-pro nature shots, weddings, etc.)? My objective is to see what works for people and why, and what you cared enough about to sink your hobby/business/whatever money into it. Two things I don't want to do are (a) start another format/brand flame war or (b) duplicate the general photography thread. IOW all hardware types welcome, and sample images probably not relevant; you just have to be able to explain what you got and how it works for you.
Example: Here's mine.
Canon EOS Rebel XS 10.1mp, bought retail kit which includes the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 28mm f/2.8
I only have one dSLR body, so that eliminates that question. Primary use is hobby, for now. The last three lenses are recent eBay snags and I have no impressions as yet. Meanwhile, the 50mm f/1.8 has seen heavy use. It's not an expensive lens and it doesn't feel like one, and the pentagonal aperature artifacts can be annoying now and then, but for the money, it's hard to argue with the overall specs. I have similar high hopes for the 28mm prime. The 20-35mm USM is a sweet deal in the used market -- works perfectly for most of my general photography without being hideously large or complex.
EDIT: Finally settled in on an upgraded collection:
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L
...and a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter.
The driving force behind the prime upgrades is a growing penchant for indoor flashless photography, which necessitates wide-aperture. The two zooms cover general walk-around (17-50) and outdoor nature/sports photography (70-200). The purpose of the macro is obvious enough, and the cheap teleconverter has so-so image quality but does give that smidgeon of extra reach that skittish wildlife occasionally requires, and works well enough in good light.
EDIT #2: More changes!
Canon 40D (bought used)
Tamron 17-55 Aspherical XR Di II f/2.8 (without the VC feature)
The 40D has roughly the same sensor and optical quality as the Rebel XS but offers a much better range of in-camera control and longer battery life, which seemed appropriate since my night photography excursions were starting to push the XS to its limits. The Tamron lens is well-regarded, has a constant f/2.8 aperture across the zoom range, and shares 67mm filters with my 70-200 f/4L. The 20mm was no longer needed, and since that and the 28-135 were my only lenses that required 72mm filters, I've simplified a bit by losing the both of them.
And yours?
Example: Here's mine.
Canon EOS Rebel XS 10.1mp, bought retail kit which includes the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 28mm f/2.8
I only have one dSLR body, so that eliminates that question. Primary use is hobby, for now. The last three lenses are recent eBay snags and I have no impressions as yet. Meanwhile, the 50mm f/1.8 has seen heavy use. It's not an expensive lens and it doesn't feel like one, and the pentagonal aperature artifacts can be annoying now and then, but for the money, it's hard to argue with the overall specs. I have similar high hopes for the 28mm prime. The 20-35mm USM is a sweet deal in the used market -- works perfectly for most of my general photography without being hideously large or complex.
EDIT: Finally settled in on an upgraded collection:
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L
...and a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter.
The driving force behind the prime upgrades is a growing penchant for indoor flashless photography, which necessitates wide-aperture. The two zooms cover general walk-around (17-50) and outdoor nature/sports photography (70-200). The purpose of the macro is obvious enough, and the cheap teleconverter has so-so image quality but does give that smidgeon of extra reach that skittish wildlife occasionally requires, and works well enough in good light.
EDIT #2: More changes!
Canon 40D (bought used)
Tamron 17-55 Aspherical XR Di II f/2.8 (without the VC feature)
The 40D has roughly the same sensor and optical quality as the Rebel XS but offers a much better range of in-camera control and longer battery life, which seemed appropriate since my night photography excursions were starting to push the XS to its limits. The Tamron lens is well-regarded, has a constant f/2.8 aperture across the zoom range, and shares 67mm filters with my 70-200 f/4L. The 20mm was no longer needed, and since that and the 28-135 were my only lenses that required 72mm filters, I've simplified a bit by losing the both of them.
And yours?