Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 19, 2008, 7:18 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

Right now I have a S3 as a backup camera. But is it better to buy another dslr as backup or use that money towards a lens.
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 19, 2008, 8:41 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I'm assuming you're not a paid event photographer, so I would say buying equipment that helps your day-to-day photography is a better investment than a backup body you hopefully never have to use.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2008, 1:04 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

Thanks John, had a small scare last week. Rebel went dead for a minute, had to power down to get it to work. So I was shooting my kids school field trip at the ice rink and the place was poorly lit so the S3 was useless to me. This is why this idea pop up. I also thought I could bring both cameras to a event and not worry about changing lenses.
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2008, 6:39 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

If you are only shooting for fun then I would spend the money on glass or something else to help you out. I shoot both for fun and also money, and it's the 2nd part that means I need to have a backup of everything. For example I have one lens in my bag that doesn't get used and is only there just in case my main lens at a wedding goes wrong (actually it does come out of my bag at a wedding as it's attached to my 3rd body so if one of the 2 cameras I'm shooting with packs up I'm ready to go without changing things).
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2008, 1:48 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

Mark your right. I started saving for the Sigma 120-300. I guess after I had my fill of glass I'll look into a second body. Yesterday I had my hands on a Canon 200 L f/1.8. Sucker was heavy. Don't know if my friend is willing to sell that lens. I think it's over 10 years old. Parts are difficult to find, but it works well and it's beauty. I think that my camera can fit inside the front element.
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2008, 5:37 AM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I love my 120-300mm f2.8 and I know JohnG does too so think that is a very wise move! As for the 200mm f1.8, it is a stunner but unless you shoot a lot indoors or under bad lights then the 120-300 in more flexible and lighter too.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2008, 9:49 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

the 120-300 would be a better choice over the 200 if u do not have a 100-300 range lens. It may not be stellar as the 200mm but its very close to it. The lens is worth ever penny u pay and takes 2x tele so well that i have enough keepers. In fact i used the lens mostly with 2x for wildlife and have got some amazing keepers.

I have used this lens and sold it to only get the 500 L for wildlife since i dont do much sports. But even now i am saving for a 100-300 mainly because i miss the range.

If u think the 120-300 is heavy, u shud also consider the 100-300 F4 from sigma. Unless u need the f2.8 the 100-300 will be a better option for its a very sharp lens wide open and there are no equals in this range from even canon.


nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2008, 3:06 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I'll throw in another support for the 120-300 f/2.8 EX...
I bought this lens for outdoor portraitures, but end up using it for birding instead :lol::-):G
(That show how flexible that lens is)

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
If u think the 120-300 is heavy, u shud also consider the 100-300 F4 from sigma. Unless u need the f2.8 the 100-300 will be a better option for its a very sharp lens wide open and there are no equals in this range from even canon.
IMO the 120-300 f/2.8 is not heavy at all...
-> it's actually a relief after using the 500mm f/4 (and a 300mm f/2.8 prime is just as heavy)

Where else will you find a lens that can go from 120 to 600 with TC?
With the 500 you still need a 2nd lens to cover the lower focal ranges which will be even heavier still...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2008, 10:14 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

it's actually a relief after using the 500mm f/4 (and a 300mm f/2.8 prime is just as heavy

actually u shud rent the 500 for a week and get used to its weight. After this anything else will feel like a relief. I have seen discussion where 24-105 was called heavy

the 120-300 is a compact weight compraed to many other f2.8 300mm lens's


nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2008, 10:57 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

I was sold on the sigma, long time ago. I think if all goes well, I'll buy that lens before the summer. As for the Canon 200, it was a head-turner. Many comments from people at the ice rink. I hope to borrow that lens again, it was a joy to use, I even felt like the paparazzi!
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:36 AM.