Final Decisions + Pictures!

[taffy12]

So I've about made up my mind, finally. I'm pretty much set on the Canon t2i with the following lenses:

EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II

EF 50mm f/1.8 II

 

Do you think the 50mm is overkill? Is it worth it? I'd like to have something I can use indoors and I like the idea of having a good portrait lens...I'm just concerned about the shallow depth of field.

Thank you, again, for all of your help, everyone! I really appreciate how patient everyone has been in answering my questions and providing lots of useful information.

And now, to share a little :-). Below are just a few pictures I've taken over the past year or so with my trust point-and-shoots.

 

 

 

[woan]

You might want to ask the same question in the appropriate forums of dpreview.com.

 

I personally like the 50mm, but I rarely use it as it would mean changing lenses in most cases unless I am shooting at home or know I will be shooting flowers or something at close range.

 

If there was an initial discussion I missed it but I assume you have a reason for not going with the Tamron 18-270 or Sigma 18-250. I may sound like a broken record, but it's not much fun changing lenses in the field. I now pack a blower, Visible Dust butterfly, a magnifying scope and wet cleaning kit to deal with sensor dust.

 

Personally when I travel I always carry a 10-20mm and 18-250mm. If I will be in one place for a while or know I will be shooting wildlife or sports, I add a 70-200mm and a 50-500mm. I also bring a 1.4 TC that I occasionally use. I also use the 70-200mm 2.8 indoors occasionally though low light performance of the Canon 7D I use is good enough that usually I keep the 18-250 on.

 

You can see the range in my gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwoan/collections/

 

Ron

[shootr]

That pretty much mirrors my kit, except for the 28-300 I spoke of before. I say get the 50mm, I've had a lot of fun playing with it, from nature to art galleries to everyday life. Something about that f1.8 just gives things a different look, but you can still stop down to get more DOF.

 

From your garden shots, you'd get good use out of it. ENJOY!!!

[chipmaster]

Based on the couple pictures you posted you will have a blast with the 50 1.8, no over kill, great starter kit!

[themnms]

You might want to ask the same question in the appropriate forums of dpreview.com.

 

I personally like the 50mm, but I rarely use it as it would mean changing lenses in most cases unless I am shooting at home or know I will be shooting flowers or something at close range.

 

If there was an initial discussion I missed it but I assume you have a reason for not going with the Tamron 18-270 or Sigma 18-250. I may sound like a broken record, but it's not much fun changing lenses in the field. I now pack a blower, Visible Dust butterfly, a magnifying scope and wet cleaning kit to deal with sensor dust.

 

Personally when I travel I always carry a 10-20mm and 18-250mm. If I will be in one place for a while or know I will be shooting wildlife or sports, I add a 70-200mm and a 50-500mm. I also bring a 1.4 TC that I occasionally use. I also use the 70-200mm 2.8 indoors occasionally though low light performance of the Canon 7D I use is good enough that usually I keep the 18-250 on.

 

You can see the range in my gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwoan/collections/

 

Ron

great gallery!!!

[bionicman97]

The 50mm 1.8 is the best of the group. I had all three lens when I used to have a t1i. The 1.8 gives you much more flexibility for low light and it will give superior portrait shots, better bokeh also.

 

That is a good group of lenses to start with as it gives you a nice range and a good low light lens. :)

[donaldsc]

I would regard the shallow depth of field from the 1.8 50 as a positive, not a negative. Your prints show that you can work with a shallow depth of field.

 

DON