Sell the MacBook for an L Lens and Mac Mini [Archive]

fiercetiger224

Jun 23, 2009, 02:47 AM

The question is, which L lens are you getting? And which MacBook are you selling?

It might just be better to just save up money, sell off the 28-135mm and grab the L lens. If you have no need for a laptop, then I guess it would be an okay option...

dr.devious

Jun 23, 2009, 02:49 AM

OceanView

Jun 23, 2009, 02:55 AM

what model Canon do you have?
Also, what type of photos do you like to take?

dr.devious

Jun 23, 2009, 03:02 AM

what model Canon do you have?
Also, what type of photos do you like to take?

I have a 50D and I typically take sports and portraits, but I want to start doing more tripod based landscapes and scenery.

I currently have
28-135mm
50mm f/1.8
70-200mm f/4

toxic

Jun 23, 2009, 03:47 AM

well, let's start with: what's wrong with the 28-135? and do you ever move your laptop?

OceanView

Jun 23, 2009, 03:54 AM

28 is not wide enough on the 50D.
Actually the 28-135mm is an average quality lens.
17-40 is a sharp lens, especially if you stop down.
I think the trade is a good idea if you don't mind using the mini.
I'd personally just save a bit more and sell the 28-135 and buy a used 17-40mm.

fiercetiger224

Jun 23, 2009, 04:08 AM

I have a 50D and I typically take sports and portraits, but I want to start doing more tripod based landscapes and scenery.

I currently have
28-135mm
50mm f/1.8
70-200mm f/4

Hmm, are you going to upgrade to full-frame eventually? If you are, then the 17-40mm is a good choice. Otherwise, if not, I'd suggest looking at the Canon 10-22mm. It's equivalent to the 16-35mm on a full frame camera. The only thing that sucks is that it'll only work on EF-S cameras, so if you upgrade to a full-frame, you won't be able to use it.

The 17-40mm is fairly wide on a crop frame, with a range of 27.2-64mm. That's wide enough for shooting landscapes and scenery. If you need anything wider, then 10-22mm is your best bet.

By the way, you still haven't stated if you need a laptop or not. If not, then sell it off and grab a Mac mini.

dr.devious

Jun 23, 2009, 04:23 AM

I really don't think I need a laptop...every once in a while I take it with me to Starbucks or to a friends house, but 95% I work with the MacBook attached to a 24" monitor on my desk.

fiercetiger224

Jun 23, 2009, 05:09 AM

Then by all means grab a Mac mini and a 17-40mm.

toxic

Jun 23, 2009, 11:47 AM

28 is not wide enough on the 50D.
Actually the 28-135mm is an average quality lens.
17-40 is a sharp lens, especially if you stop down.

i was asking the OP, not you. and all lenses are sharp stopped down.

OP: why have you ruled out a 17-50 or similar?

Sounds Good

Jun 23, 2009, 01:27 PM

Funny, I'm thinking of selling my lenses to buy a MBP! :)

Patriks7

Jun 23, 2009, 06:28 PM

i was asking the OP, not you. and all lenses are sharp stopped down.

OP: why have you ruled out a 17-50 or similar?

Well I am willing to bet for 99% it's due to the L :p

dr.devious

Jun 24, 2009, 12:20 AM

Well I am willing to bet for 99% it's due to the L :p

Who can deny the allure of the red ring, but the reason is primarily that I can get this lens for $550 brand new...

Patriks7

Jun 24, 2009, 07:59 AM

Who can deny the allure of the red ring, but the reason is primarily that I can get this lens for $550 brand new...

Now that's a great deal! The cheapest I can get it here is 615€ (and that is without tax) which translates to about 865$!

gkarris

Jun 24, 2009, 07:02 PM

I use my MacBook and don't do a lot of PP, so I just use iPhoto (just crops, a little balancing, and converting to JPEG).

Using the desktops at the Apple Store, I would think you'd want to use a larger screen, perhaps with better color rendition for PP work, especially if you don't have a 15"+ MBP.

So, if you can do without a laptop, get a Mini, and use the extra $ on an L... :D

HBOC

Jun 24, 2009, 08:26 PM

as someone stated earlier, the 17-40L isn't wide angle on a crop sensor. I would get the 10-22mm. I had one, and it was phenomenal. You probably could get $250-$300 for the 28-135 (IS?) i would think. The 17-40L and the 10-22 are the same price, basically and both hold great re-sale value. I bought my 10-22 for $700 new and sold it a few years later for $600.

Also, how much landscape are you going to shoot? The 10-22 is great, but it is a specialized lens, so to speak. It really isn't an ideal Walk around lens. It is fun for architecture and such. maybe get the 17-55 2.8 IS. it is a bit more, but you wouldn't have as much of a gap between FLs if you sell the 28-135 and get the 10-22 (you would have a gap from 22-70mm), where as you would have a gap from 55-70 if you go the 17-55 route.

Too bad Canon doesnt make a 10-300mm f/2.8 lens , lol. But then it would cost $9000 and weigh 20 lbs.

wheezy

Jun 24, 2009, 11:27 PM

toxic

Jun 25, 2009, 01:32 AM

I wouldn't jump on the 10-22, it is a great lens (I rented it once to try it out, I liked it) but the 17-40 is plenty wide on a crop. I'd skip past any EF-S lenses. In 5 years everything might (100% hopeful guess) be FF, then what good are they? EF aren't going anywhere, and yeah, the L is very very tempting. The 17-40 is very sharp, great colors.

Do it. It's a good plan. No, it's a great plan.

APS-C is not going away. no matter how you cut it, it will be cheaper, and it will have more "reach" and DoF for those who want it. a 24x36mm sensor is not the pinnacle of photographic achievement.

how 'bout everyone skip 35mm, and just go straight to medium format? it'd save everyone loads of money switching, after all.

if an EF-S (or DX) lens has the focal length you need, get it.

luminosity

Jun 25, 2009, 02:15 AM

L lenses aren't only about optical quality. It's also about the quality of the lens construction.

bertpalmer

Jun 25, 2009, 02:18 AM

Sounds good to me. You are certainly replacing the weakest lens in your lineup and the 17-40 is a superb lens.

dr.devious

Jun 25, 2009, 02:34 AM

Do it. It's a good plan. No, it's a great plan.

After looking through a samples thread of photos taken with the 17-40 on POTN I am feeling more certain that it is a solid plan. It really will make more sense to have a desktop anyhow!

wheezy

Jun 25, 2009, 10:36 AM

After looking through a samples thread of photos taken with the 17-40 on POTN I am feeling more certain that it is a solid plan. It really will make more sense to have a desktop anyhow!

Just save up and get a MBA later for portability :) At least that's my one day hopeful plan. I got tired of having my photos sometimes, if I had my external drive. Aperture was a pain cause I had to reference some, others were in the library... pictures everywhere=drove me nuts. If you rarely take it out of the house then the Mini will be great, bump it up to 4GB of RAM and let it fly.

I really should go get ready for work. Dangit!

jpfisher

Jun 25, 2009, 10:57 AM

as someone stated earlier, the 17-40L isn't wide angle on a crop sensor.

Sure it is -- it gives you the equivalent angle of view of a 28mm lens on 135 format -- that' s a very workable wide-angle option.

When you get to 21mm and wider, as was suggested, is the realm of ultra-wide -- much more of a speciality lens... not a bad thing, mind you, but not as robust as the 28-65mm he'll get with this lens on a crop-body.

Also a nice future-proof lens -- upgrade to a 5D or the like and you now have an ultra-wide to (very slightly) wide-normal lens.

fiercetiger224

Jun 25, 2009, 11:55 AM

After looking through a samples thread of photos taken with the 17-40 on POTN I am feeling more certain that it is a solid plan. It really will make more sense to have a desktop anyhow!

Go for it mate! Once you grab a full frame camera, you'll be thankful to have made a wise decision. It's super wide on a full-frame. Plus, L lenses rule. :D

Patriks7

Jun 25, 2009, 02:53 PM

So once you get that beauty lens let us (or at least me since I want to buy the same :p) how it works for you!

dr.devious

Jun 25, 2009, 05:55 PM

gkarris

Jun 25, 2009, 07:14 PM

Ok let me muddy the water on this a little...I was at Best Buy picking up a DVD and they had a Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 for $325 on clearance after my RZ Coupon. It is brand new. Would this be a better buy than the 17-40L?

I don't know much about the Tamrons/Sigmas/Tokinas, but I think the only third parties that beat Canon L is Zeiss (which I've used) and Leica... :eek:

toxic

Jun 26, 2009, 12:19 AM

Ok let me muddy the water on this a little...I was at Best Buy picking up a DVD and they had a Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 for $325 on clearance after my RZ Coupon. It is brand new. Would this be a better buy than the 17-40L?

the Tamron is a great lens, if you don't mind slower (and not-silent) AF. i would choose it over the 17-40 - faster (if you need speed), better focal length range, slightly sharper (particularly on the long end), and cheaper.

luminosity

Jun 26, 2009, 12:27 AM

I don't think there is such a thing as a Tamron 17-55. It's 17-50, I believe.

dr.devious

Jun 26, 2009, 01:26 AM

I don't think there is such a thing as a Tamron 17-55. It's 17-50, I believe.

I stand corrected...you are right. I mis-typed it.

dr.devious

Jun 26, 2009, 01:30 AM

the Tamron is a great lens, if you don't mind slower (and not-silent) AF. i would choose it over the 17-40 - faster (if you need speed), better focal length range, slightly sharper (particularly on the long end), and cheaper.

I went ahead and I bought it since Best Buy has 30 days return policy. I used both my certificates and a coupon, dropping it to $275!. The lens seems very sharp and I like the f/2.8. Since I have been using the 28-135 and my 70-200, both with USM, I was initially bothered by the noise of the AF, but it is quieter than my 50mm without USM. I think I am going to return the 17-40 in favor of this lens.

luminosity

Jun 26, 2009, 01:35 AM

The Tamron 17-50 is generally well regarded. The only real trouble spots are quality control and construction, along with the 5mm of range you're losing.

My Nikon 17-55 easily survived an accidental meeting with a brick wall that probably would have severely damaged the Tamron, and probably the Canon as well (mainly because the Canon 17-55 is not an L lens, and is not so well put together as the Nikon, which you do pay for).

dr.devious

Jun 26, 2009, 01:44 AM

The Tamron 17-50 is generally well regarded. The only real trouble spots are quality control and construction...

I was concerned initially with this issue as well. I have only ever own Canon lenses, but this Tamron is built considerably better than my 28-135mm kit lens. While it was not as solid as the 17-40L, its solidness surprised me. If there is spotty QC, I think I got a good one.

HBOC

Jun 27, 2009, 03:44 PM

Sure it is -- it gives you the equivalent angle of view of a 28mm lens on 135 format -- that' s a very workable wide-angle option.

When you get to 21mm and wider, as was suggested, is the realm of ultra-wide -- much more of a speciality lens... not a bad thing, mind you, but not as robust as the 28-65mm he'll get with this lens on a crop-body.

Also a nice future-proof lens -- upgrade to a 5D or the like and you now have an ultra-wide to (very slightly) wide-normal lens.

well i consider it wide angle:) I dont think the 16-35mm is considered UWA, bjut i could be wrong.

The tamron is an excellent lens. They used to make a 17-35 or 17-40 a few years ago, that they disco'd. It was an amazing lens, but as with any lens, it is hit and miss (mostly hit) with sharpness.