Sell the MacBook for an L Lens and Mac Mini

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dr.devious, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. dr.devious macrumors regular

    dr.devious

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Truckee Meadows, NV
    #1
    I am playing with the idea of selling my 28-135 and MacBook for a 14-40mm L and Mac Mini?

    Any thoughts from the camera crew?
     
  2. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #2
    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...
     
  3. dr.devious thread starter macrumors regular

    dr.devious

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Truckee Meadows, NV
    #3
    17-40mm f/4L and I have an Aluminum MacBook
     
  4. OceanView macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    #4
    what model Canon do you have?
    Also, what type of photos do you like to take?
     
  5. dr.devious thread starter macrumors regular

    dr.devious

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Truckee Meadows, NV
    #5
    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
     
  6. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #6
    well, let's start with: what's wrong with the 28-135? and do you ever move your laptop?
     
  7. OceanView macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    #7
    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.
     
  8. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #8
    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.
     
  9. dr.devious thread starter macrumors regular

    dr.devious

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Truckee Meadows, NV
    #9
    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.
     
  10. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #10
    Then by all means grab a Mac mini and a 17-40mm.
     
  11. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #11
    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?
     
  12. Sounds Good macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    #12
    Funny, I'm thinking of selling my lenses to buy a MBP! :)
     
  13. Patriks7 macrumors 65816

    Patriks7

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #13
    Well I am willing to bet for 99% it's due to the L :p
     
  14. dr.devious thread starter macrumors regular

    dr.devious

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Truckee Meadows, NV
    #14
    Who can deny the allure of the red ring, but the reason is primarily that I can get this lens for $550 brand new...
     
  15. Patriks7 macrumors 65816

    Patriks7

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #15
    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$!
     
  16. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #16
    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
     
  17. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #17
    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.
     
  18. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #18
    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.
     
  19. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #19
    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.
     
  20. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #20
    L lenses aren't only about optical quality. It's also about the quality of the lens construction.
     
  21. bertpalmer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    #21
    Sounds good to me. You are certainly replacing the weakest lens in your lineup and the 17-40 is a superb lens.
     
  22. dr.devious thread starter macrumors regular

    dr.devious

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Truckee Meadows, NV
    #22
    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!
     
  23. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #23
    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!
     
  24. jpfisher macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #24
    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.
     
  25. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page