A beginner needing lens advice

frnofrno

I recently bought a 20D as my entry into DSLR and I have acquired the following lenses as I fumble around looking for my best setup. (Eventually I will go "L" and 2.8 on everything but I am not in a financial position to do so for at least another 18 months) I shoot landscape pics for my artist/wife as references for oil painting, and I shoot pics for a community web site which range from indoor business presentations to parades to high school basketball and football under the lights. (I don't ask for much do I?) Only things I don't do is sell photos and enter contests, so some of the higher level stuff you pros talk about will not concern me, especially since I know I need to spend several grand to play in that ball park.

Here is what I currently have (and two have to go)

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (no VC)
Tamron 28-300 XR DI LD f/3.5-6.3 (no VC)
Canon 200-300 f/4.5-5.6 (no IS)
Canon 18-55 f/3.5 - 5.6 IS
Canon 55-250 f/4 - 5.6 IS

I have promised my wife that two will go. Thinking to keep the 28-75 (because of f/2.8), 18-55 (for the 18mm capability) and 28-300 (for telephoto and the all-in-one appeal). Looking for any reasons I should steer away from any of these three or any reason I should keep one of the others (55-250 IS or 200-300) instead? My real struggle is choosing the long telephoto. Thinking maybe the 55-250 with IS might be a better choice.

Any advice would be appreciated. If (in my feeble price range) you have a better suggestion, please throw it at me.

Thanks!

Moogle Pepper

I would take out the 18-55 and 55-250

the 28-75 tamron is a keeper.

What I would get instead of keeping all of them:
17-55 f/2.8 IS. Hands down as your general use. But for reach, 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 ( I personally use the 24-70, but others will be sure to profess their undying love for the 17-55)

there might be a lurking 17-55 here.. but they go fast. So you can spend a good 1700 for those two lenses and you will be happy. Very happy. did I mention very?

Tee Why

If it was me, I'd keep the 18-55 for the landscape stuff, Tamron 28-75 for the events, and Canon 55-250IS for the sports.

Tha Tamron 28-300 I don't think performs as well as the Canon 55-250mm at the long end and the IS may be helpful as well. The Canon 100-300 is an old lens and probably isn't as optically good as the 55-250mm either.

swintonphoto

Whatever you do, keep the 18-55. It's the only real landscape lens you've got.

How about I throw a wrench in all this...
Sell ALL your lenses and buy the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 ($400) & Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 ($700). Those two lenses are very affordable, give you comprehensive reach, are extremely sharp for their price, and have a large max aperture. Almost pro quality for a very affordable price. Might be able to scrounge close to enough selling the other lenses. This is what I would do.

See these reviews:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23

swintonphoto

Other affordable high quality alternatives would be Sigma's lenses such as:

17-70mm 2.8-4.5 ($340)
18-50mm 2.8 ($380)
70-200mm 2.8 ($790)

Tee Why

swintonphoto wrote:

Whatever you do, keep the 18-55. It's the only real landscape lens you've got.

How about I throw a wrench in all this...
Sell ALL your lenses and buy the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 ($400) & Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 ($700). Those two lenses are very affordable, give you comprehensive reach, are extremely sharp for their price, and have a large max aperture. Almost pro quality for a very affordable price. Might be able to scrounge close to enough selling the other lenses. This is what I would do.

See these reviews:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23

Was thinking the same thing but didn't want to throw more lenses into the mix. he he he.

The Hack

Nah Look
through out the wife and the money you save you can keep your lenses
and get yourself a 2.8 3oomm and enjoy the life
hahahah (just being dry)

Photobycate

I'm looking to buy the sharpest most affordable (for me) 18-200 lens. I originally was thinking of the Tamron but I read an article that compared the Tamron to the Sigma 18-200 and the Sigma was the sharpest. The lens sells on B&H for $319.00. I have a Sony A300 with the kit lens 18-70. This lens just has to go. Very, very soft.

What is your opinion on the Sigma?

swintonphoto wrote:

Other affordable high quality alternatives would be Sigma's lenses such as:

17-70mm 2.8-4.5 ($340)
18-50mm 2.8 ($380)
70-200mm 2.8 ($790)

ziggy53

Photobycate wrote:

I'm looking to buy the sharpest most affordable (for me) 18-200 lens. I originally was thinking of the Tamron but I read an article that compared the Tamron to the Sigma 18-200 and the Sigma was the sharpest. The lens sells on B&H for $319.00. I have a Sony A300 with the kit lens 18-70. This lens just has to go. Very, very soft.

What is your opinion on the Sigma?

All of the 18-200mm zooms, from every manufacturer, are compromises and each has demonstrated weaknesses at one region or other in the zoom range.

If you are not happy with the Sony AF DT 18-70mm, F3.5-5.6 (SAL-1870), there is a good chance that you would likewise not be happy with any of the 18-200mm zooms.

I strongly recommend a 2 lens solution for that range. In your case I suggest:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tamron 70-200mm, f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro

While that would leave a gap at 50-70mm, I doubt that it would cause any hardship.

frnofrno

I am still working toward a 2.8 solution throughout and I have read some less than great reviews of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Seems everyone likes the sigma 70-200 2.8 (non dg, non macro, older version). Can you comment on Sigma vs tamron in the 17-50 and 70-200 ranges?

bandgeekndb

frnofrno wrote:

I am still working toward a 2.8 solution throughout and I have read some less than great reviews of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Seems everyone likes the sigma 70-200 2.8 (non dg, non macro, older version). Can you comment on Sigma vs tamron in the 17-50 and 70-200 ranges?

Well, I won't be able to write about the Tamrons, but I'm getting a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 today, so I'll play around with it this weekend and let you know what I find. Especially some test pics. Anything specific you'd like me to test?

frnofrno

bandgeekndb wrote:

Well, I won't be able to write about the Tamrons, but I'm getting a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 today, so I'll play around with it this weekend and let you know what I find. Especially some test pics. Anything specific you'd like me to test?

Just whether you find any weakness. I have read nothing but good things about this lens.

swintonphoto

frnofrno wrote:

I am still working toward a 2.8 solution throughout and I have read some less than great reviews of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Seems everyone likes the sigma 70-200 2.8 (non dg, non macro, older version). Can you comment on Sigma vs tamron in the 17-50 and 70-200 ranges?

I have never used them, but have read LOTS of reviews. The consensus seems to be that the Tamron's are slightly better optically, and the Sigmas are slightly better at fast focusing. But, I think both are really good. If focusing speed is most important, the Sigma's would be the best. If optical sharpness is the most important, the Tamron is probably best.

frnofrno

swintonphoto wrote:

I have never used them, but have read LOTS of reviews. The consensus seems to be that the Tamron's are slightly better optically, and the Sigmas are slightly better at fast focusing. But, I think both are really good. If focusing speed is most important, the Sigma's would be the best. If optical sharpness is the most important, the Tamron is probably best.

Thanks much.

Photobycate

Thank You, Ziggy.

ziggy53 wrote:

All of the 18-200mm zooms, from every manufacturer, are compromises and each has demonstrated weaknesses at one region or other in the zoom range.

If you are not happy with the Sony AF DT 18-70mm, F3.5-5.6 (SAL-1870), there is a good chance that you would likewise not be happy with any of the 18-200mm zooms.

I strongly recommend a 2 lens solution for that range. In your case I suggest:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tamron 70-200mm, f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro

While that would leave a gap at 50-70mm, I doubt that it would cause any hardship.

ziggy53

frnofrno wrote:

I am still working toward a 2.8 solution throughout and I have read some less than great reviews of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Seems everyone likes the sigma 70-200 2.8 (non dg, non macro, older version). Can you comment on Sigma vs tamron in the 17-50 and 70-200 ranges?

Regarding the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 DG EX HSM (non "Macro"), I tried 2 copies and they did not meet my criteria. Wide open and at distances typically 100 feet away or farther, the 2 copies both showed an odd "ringing" of the image, especially visible around high contrast subjects. At close distance and at smaller apertures the problem diminished dramatically.

I was very pleased with the focus speed and accuracy of the Sigma HSM, but it had a diminished contrast as a result of the ringing and I needed to use the lens wide open.

A gallery showing one of the Sigma lenses against a Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L is here:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/gallery/1269595_pDgrL#59578773_cXsde

Manfr3d

I think it would be easier to simplify your kit by selling all lenses and by buying the following two lenses:

1. Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 (new or used)
2. Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 EX DG HSM (buy used)

This way you only have to carry two lenses at a time. And they cover all your needs.

Photobycate

I'd really like to work with one all purpose lens for now. Hence the 18-200. I live in NYC and travel on the subway and buses and want to have minimum equipment with me. Also, I never thought of buying used. Duh! That's a great idea. It will save me a bit of money. I'll track B&H's website to see what they have available.

Thanks,:D

Manfr3d wrote:

I think it would be easier to simplify your kit by selling all lenses and by buying the following two lenses:

1. Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 (new or used)
2. Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 EX DG HSM (buy used)

This way you only have to carry two lenses at a time. And they cover all your needs.

Tee Why

Tamron and Sigma both make a fast (f2.8) normal zoom. The tamron has a 17-50mm f2.8 and sigma has a 18-50mm f2.8 Macro II. Both are reviewed at photozone.de. The reviewer there preferrs the Tamron for various reasons. I would agree for a few reasons, it has less distortion at the wide end IIRC, it's wider, and I think it may be sharper as well. I've had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens and other than a very high pitch AF motor noise, it's optics are excellent and in pro grade from my personal experience. The sigma has a nicer build feel and "macro" or more likely close focusing ability but I'd rather have better optics than closer focusing ability. Especially if you intend to get another lens that can focus closer/give more magnification.

As for the 70-200mm f2.8 zooms, Tamron has been reviewed by dpreview and PopPHoto IIRC. Both state excellent optics (perhaps better than Canon's L lens) but that the AF isn't as fast or reliable. Considering that it costs less than half of the Canon's 70-200mm f2.8L IS, that's not bad though. It has a really close focusing distance and a magnification greater than the current Sigma "macro" lenses.

The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 Macro II is the current version and I think it was tested at dpreview and PopPhoto as well. It does not focus as close as the Tamron and I heard that the first macro version had focusing and softness issues at the 200mm end at min. focusing distance. The II version was suppose to fix that but I hear it's not that much better and that the older non Macro versions are optically better. The only problems is that they are no longer made and you have to buy used. So it's not a perfect world with these two options. I've shot with the non Macro sigma once and thought it was a good lens, but I prefer to spend a couple hundred more and get the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 non IS (which I used to have) as I thought it was better built, had just slightly faster AF, and wasn't that much more than the Sigma ($800 vs $1050 or so with rebate and such).

If you aren't shooting a lot of fast action, I'd go for the Tamron as the AF won't be a much of an issue. If you do shoot a lot of fast action/sports, I'd probably get a used Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 DG non macro or better yet a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 non IS L lens as most use the 70-200mm zooms at the 200mm end a lot.

As a side, there is a comparison of the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 non IS vs a IS version at my site. The biggest difference I saw was that the non IS had better flare control and less CA. Sharpness was not much different, more trivial. The IS version is also nose heavy and felt more unwieldy to me as well. The IS is nice though and it does have weather seals which is nice if you have a sealed body like the 1D series or the 40/50D as well.

Having said all that, I didn't like the big white "slow" 70-200mm f2.8 L lens and traded it for a Canon 135mm f2L lens and am much much happier having a smaller, black, lighter, sharper, faster, cheaper lens. If you can foot zoom, I highly recommend primes over zooms.

jforbes

IMO, for landscapes and photos of stuff your wife has done, you have a few options.

One note here is that you have all these lenses, and many of them have completely overlapping functionality. This is just a waste of money. If you get rid of two of your lenses, you should get rid of overlapping ones that do *nothing* for you:

28-300
100-300 or 55-250

Those are the easy choices.

If you want to get rid of three, the decision isn't too tough, either. Decide between the 18-55IS and the 28-75 2.8. I would keep the 18-55 - the IS is more useful for landscapes than the F2.8, and the 28-75 is a very poor lens in the corners, and it has no wide angle to speak of.

You have an alternative route here.

Sell all the lenses. Every single one. You should have a pretty good idea of the focal lengths you need. You could probably go all F2.8 right now...

17-50 2.8 (Tamron or Sigma)
200/2.8
or 70-200 4L ($500 or so)
or Sigma/Tamron 70-200 2.8

That way you end up with 2 lenses that cover what you need, you can get a 1.4x teleconverter down the road if you need extension to near 300mm, and you don't have a bunch of kit that's totally wasted.


If you don't have a decent tripod now, that is a far better investment than a new lens, I should add.

frnofrno

Well, based on the cumulative advice of the DGRIN Borg and reading lots of reviews, that is exactly what I did. Tamron 17-50 2.8, sigma 70-200 2.8, tamron 2x and tamron 1.4x. Should have both lenses in a few days and will dump the rest. Also sourcing a Sigma 18-200 OS as a "walkaround" because size of 70-200 is prohibitive in casual environments.

Thanks to all of you who contributed advice. I will go away and shoot with these until I can afford Canon L IS lenses.

Photobycate

Fantastic. Good luck to you!:D

frnofrno wrote:

Well, based on the cumulative advice of the DGRIN Borg and reading lots of reviews, that is exactly what I did. Tamron 17-50 2.8, sigma 70-200 2.8, tamron 2x and tamron 1.4x. Should have both lenses in a few days and will dump the rest. Also sourcing a Sigma 18-200 OS as a "walkaround" because size of 70-200 is prohibitive in casual environments.

Thanks to all of you who contributed advice. I will go away and shoot with these until I can afford Canon L IS lenses.