My New Photography Shopping List (a.k.a. Whining about stuff I can’t afford)

Needs (all at < $25)

  1. Tripod
  2. Lens hood for FD 50mm (BS-52 or equiv)
  3. Lens hood for EF-S 18-55mm (EW-60C or equiv)
  4. UV Filter for EF-S 18-55mm (58mm)
  5. Extra SDHC cards

Wants (most at > $200)

  1. Wide-angle lens (8-12mm, prime preferred)
  2. 50mm EF or 60mm EF-S Macro lens
  3. Lightbox
  4. Speedlite
  5. Image-stablilized 70-200mm lens

Part of the drawbacks of an FOVCF image sensor is having to convert focal lengths when considering lenses.  My EF-S 18-55mm zoom lens will give me an 18mm wide-angle FOV.  However, if I mounted, say, an EF 14mm prime, it would give me a 22.4mm FOV because of the 1.6x crop factor.  EF-S lenses have an additional rear element that shrinks the perspective down to the FOV of the APS-C sensor.  EF lenses don’t have that additional rear element so the sensor crops the FOV, increasing the effective focal length by a factor of 1.6.  If I wanted an FOV less than 18mm, I need to be looking at EF lenses < 12mm or EF-S lenses < 18mm.  Make sense?

There are no Canon primes that fit that bill.  There are 3rd party lenses that do, however.  If I exclude fisheye lenses (I’m in no mood to have to perspective correct every one of my wide-angle shots), the current Canon lineup gives me the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for $900, the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM for $800, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for $1200, or the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for $600.

As for the IS 70-200mm zoom (excluding L-series), I have the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II (designed to complement my kit 18-55mm zoom) at $300, the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS at $700, and the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM at $500.

  1. #1 by Joshua on June 7, 2012 - 7:56 AM

    To answer why I’ve excluded L-series, would you drop a 351in3 Cobrajet engine into a Ford Focus? Yes, L-series lenses would work on my camera but I’d be wasting 40% of the lens’s FOV to sensor crop.

  2. #2 by Phillip on June 7, 2012 - 11:27 AM

    Personally, I would hold off on the lenses for awhile. I can see where they’d be nice, but you can kind of compensate for the lack of them with most of your needs. It’s kind of like golfing; you can go out and buy the most expensive set of clubs around, but that won’t necessarily translate into better performance. After awhile it’ll help, but, it could take awhile to get there or you could be there already. Just my $.02 though.

    • #3 by Joshua on June 7, 2012 - 1:27 PM

      I fully agree. I’m way more interested in getting a tripod, filters, and hoods and improving my technique a lot more before I start investing in lenses. The 70-200mm range is the sweet spot for most pros covering news, sports, nature, etc, but me being the opposite of a pro…

      And 18mm should be wide enough for landscapes. 🙂

      • #4 by Joshua on June 11, 2012 - 8:16 AM

        And it is! 18-24mm is the perfect angle for shooting landscapes to hack into panoramas. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: