If you were me...

macmassey

I'm really in need of some input. I guess I am what's called an "advanced amateur." I own a Canon 40D with a 28-135 kit lens. I am very comfortable with both and feel I am taking some very nice photographs. I just got a bonus at work and want to get another lens. I have ruled out any L series due to cost. So, here's the situation. The thought of one of the do it all "super zooms" really has me intrigued since I'm a walk around type photographer interested in pretty much everything except macro right now. Ive read reviews on the Canon 18-200 and the Sigma and Tamron equivalents including the very tempting 18-270. The 28-135 has been quite versatile as a walk around lens but I need something longer and now I can finally do something about it. I know there is a image and workmanship quality trade off for getting such a great range and not having to change lenses. But I am also wondering if I should keep my 28-135 and buy a 70-200 from Tamron or Sigma because I am thinking they will be of better quality for that range than the super zooms, not to mention a 2.8 aperture. Any advice? If anyone does recommend a super zoom, which one?

Richard

In general, the greater the zoom range the less the image quality, especially at the extremes of the range. 28mm is not very wide on a 40D. You might be better off to look at something like a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. That would open up two new areas for you: wide angle and low light/big aperture shooting. In the future, you could replace the 28-135 with a 70-200. Just a thought.

paddler4

+1 what Richard wrote. In general, the best zooms have zoom ranges of around 3x. There are some good ones with larger ranges, although at some cost. My largest range is the EF-S 15-85 (not 17-85), which might be worth your consideration if you want to go wider and don't need speed. But even that lens, which is a very good lens, has some costs compared to one with a shorter range, e.g., more barrel and pincushion distortion at the ends and more CA at some points. These weaknesses are trivial to correct in software, but other optical weaknesses of superzooms are sometimes not. If you want to go wide and want more speed but with a shorter zoom range, the Tamron Richard recommends (the non-VC version) gets consistently great reviews, but I have only used one once.

As for the 70-200: that is a useful range, but I have one of the Canons and can't help with the two you are considering.

ziggy53

Richard wrote: »

In general, the greater the zoom range the less the image quality, especially at the extremes of the range. 28mm is not very wide on a 40D. You might be better off to look at something like a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. That would open up two new areas for you: wide angle and low light/big aperture shooting. In the future, you could replace the 28-135 with a 70-200. Just a thought.

Of your options I suggest that purchasing the Tamron SP 70-200mm, f2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro for the longer zoom and keeping your Canon EF 28-135mm, f3.5-f5.6 IS USM will give you a "transition" to a better long end, but then plan on trading the 28-135mm with a standard, constant aperture, f2.8 zoom to give you a better wide end as well as coverage through normal focal length and moderate telephoto. The "hole" from 50-55mm to 70mm is easily compensated for and you won't miss it.

A 2 lens kit will handily beat an all-in-one zoom in all image quality respects.

Art Scott

Just gonna toss what I would be after......I would keep the 28-135 as a back up and move into a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 sand a Sigma 70-200f2.8 .......if you are going to stay with a crop camera, as the 17 - 70 will not migrate well into full frame.....I have found sigma gives as good as quality as any Nikon lens I have owned or do now own.

ThatCanonGuy

Ziggy, why the Tammy and not the Sigma? The Sigma has the HSM AF motor, the Tammy doesn't have an AF motor.

I'd suggest the Sigma 70-200 if you want the 2.8, or the Canon 70-200 f4L (about the same price) if you want slightly better IQ and slightly faster AF.

Oh yeah, don't get a superzoom. They're pretty much good for nothing, except zooming a lot. You sacrifice IQ and aperture.

ziggy53

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Ziggy, why the Tammy and not the Sigma? The Sigma has the HSM AF motor, the Tammy doesn't have an AF motor.

I'd suggest the Sigma 70-200 if you want the 2.8, or the Canon 70-200 f4L (about the same price) if you want slightly better IQ and slightly faster AF.

Oh yeah, don't get a superzoom. They're pretty much good for nothing, except zooming a lot. You sacrifice IQ and aperture.

The Tamron uses a micromotor for AF while the Sigma uses HSM, similar to Canon's USM. While the HSM is faster and much, much quieter, the Tamron is still accurate and fast enough for most applications (with the exception of sports/action.)

The Tamron simply and consistently rates as higher in image quality at f2.8. By f5.6 they are very close and too close for easy differentiation, but I do use my Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM wide open much of the time and the Tamron is the closest to the "L" image quality at f2.8.

Understand that I really wanted the Sigma 70-200mm back when I was researching that range of zooms, but my testing and results of 2 - copies seem to match even the newer incarnation of the Sigma 70-200mm:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116&page=3

Here is a comparison of the Canon version vs the better (very old) Sigma version:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=29773

To see a comparison of the latest Sigma vs Tamron at 200mm and wide open:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=469&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=470&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

In conclusion the Sigma has more color fringing and less resolution at 200mm and wide open than either the Tamron or Canon equivalents. My own testing bears that out as do at least 2 professional reviews. If you intend to use the lens at smaller apertures only the Canon 70-200mm, f4L versions are fairly economical and are an excellent quality and value.

rpcrowe

I totally agree

ziggy53 wrote: »

Of your options I suggest that purchasing the Tamron SP 70-200mm, f2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro for the longer zoom and keeping your Canon EF 28-135mm, f3.5-f5.6 IS USM will give you a "transition" to a better long end, but then plan on trading the 28-135mm with a standard, constant aperture, f2.8 zoom to give you a better wide end as well as coverage through normal focal length and moderate telephoto. The "hole" from 50-55mm to 70mm is easily compensated for and you won't miss it.

A 2 lens kit will handily beat an all-in-one zoom in all image quality respects.

My travel and general photography kit is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on a pair of 1.6x cameras. I really do not miss the 55-70mm gap to any extent.

I shoot about 90-95% of my imagery using these two lenses and covered a two week China tour with these two. I did not use another lens, although I brought a 12-24mm Tokina f/4.

My two lenses are expensive but, there are other lens combinations which have about the same focal range but, which are less expensive.

Overfocused

I recommend the None 0mm-0mm F/0 super zoom A 70-200L would blow your mind compared to the lens you have now if you took comparison shots. It's a dramatic difference in overall IQ.

A 2 lens setup is best as most here are recommending; a good low light short range zoom and a 70-200 are the best combination to have if you could only have 2 lenses.

For my taste, I'd pick a 50mm f/2.5 macro and a 70-200 F2.8 if I were only going to have 2 lenses for the rest of my life!


If you don't need autofocus, the Takumar 50mm F1.4 lens for the Pentax M42 screw mount is considered one of the best 50mm lenses in the world as far as I've read. You can get an adapter + a Takumar 50mm F1.4 for $80-100 and have jaw-dropping IQ. There are also some Canon brand vintage lenses like that, cheap but killer IQ, but I haven't done my homework on all of that yet :]

chrisjohnson

Dave, I took a look at some of your photos and you have a good eye. When you took these with the 28-135 I can see why you like the lens. You take a lot at 28mm it seems and so I would be tempted to extend to 18 on the wide end also and the Canon 18-200 must be tempting, as are 18-270 types. Canon have a 55-250 which is inexpensive too for the long end only.

I can't help feeling with the quality of your eye that would really enjoy some better quality glass - an excellent prime would fit your budget too and you could see the difference.

macmassey

I want to thank everybody for your valuable input and "Goldenballs" (great moniker!) thanks for the kind words about my photographs. I love this forum and always learn so much whether I've posted something or not! I am going to go ahead and pick up the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and as soon as I can afford, swap out my 28-135 for something like the Canon 15-55 2.8 or a Tamron, Sigma equivalent to get more on the wide end. I have also looked at the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 and have heard good things about it.

Pupator

Just another vote for the 17-50 + 70-200 combination, though I would start with the Tamron 17-50 and add the 70-200 later.

dantambok

+1 for the 17-50 and 70-200. I have to agree that those are what you need most

jnsuffolk

Well for my 2 cents. I have a 40d I have the 28-135. I also have the original 18-55 that came with it for wide. Then I purchase a 70=300 canon lens. For me this is a really good zoom lens. I don't use it a lot when walking around but if I' go to the mountains or the beach or something like that it works great. Takes great pics.

ziggy53

jnsuffolk wrote: »

Well for my 2 cents. I have a 40d I have the 28-135. I also have the original 18-55 that came with it for wide. Then I purchase a 70=300 canon lens. For me this is a really good zoom lens. I don't use it a lot when walking around but if I' go to the mountains or the beach or something like that it works great. Takes great pics.

Canon currently offers 3 - 70-300mm telephoto zoom lenses. Which one do you have?

• EF 70-300mm, f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
• EF 70-300mm, f/4-5.6 IS USM
• EF 70-300mm, f/4-5.6L IS USM

Brett1000

dantambok wrote: »

+1 for the 17-50 and 70-200. I have to agree that those are what you need most

that would be a significant upgrade

macmassey

speaking of 70-200 and 70-300
My question about the Tamron 70-200mm macro is without stabilization, amd I going to struggle with handheld shots? Also, a couple of those Canon 70-300mm lenses don't seem to be that expensive. How good are they for consideration?

chrisjohnson

macmassey wrote: »

My question about the Tamron 70-200mm macro is without stabilization, amd I going to struggle with handheld shots? Also, a couple of those Canon 70-300mm lenses don't seem to be that expensive. How good are they for consideration?

I use the Canon 70-300 IS USM on a 40D. It is good value for the money. It is not the best lens I ever owned but good enough for me as I need this telephoto range occasionally and am not earning my money with it. When I do, it is very nice to have the 200-300 extra reach.

I don't know the Tamron but I would be reluctant to buy any long lens without IS. I prefer to manage without a tripod whenever I can. When you use a tripod most of the time I suppose it does not matter so much.

ziggy53

I view stabilization as a mixed bag of benefit and detriment. Lens based IS systems take a bit to engage, so they are often worthless for fast action sports, especially if the action is somewhat unpredictable. The IS system takes a while to engage and then the AF system also has a tough time during that period, making the camera, as a system, less responsive. Physical stabilization, like a monopod or tripod, is still very viable although obviously more lumbersome. (I insist that "lumbersome" is a word. )

IS is more valuable for social event shooting where the action is a bit more predictable and slower moving, but you still have to plan for that delay and that can spoil your timing.

I am still using the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (non-IS) for these reasons and I'm not planning to change. (Even though the IS version has other benefits I could use, they are collectively not enough at this point to make me purchase it.)

On the other hand, I'm very happy to have the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM in my travel kit. For travel the IS makes very good sense and seems to match my style of shooting perfectly.

SimpsonBrothers

I have to recommend the following:

Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM $649.00 (b&h)
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM $899.00 (b&h)
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS Telephoto $359.00 (b&h)

With those three lenses you can shoot anything. Just my opinion, and yes, I love Sigma glass!

form

Still a GWC, no real knowledge of composition is visible in the images. What are you shooting? Everything in general, nothing in particular? What would you want 200mm for? What do you want ultra-wide for?

Checks and balances...get a lens, still can't get the shot you want with it. Why?

Knowledge deficit R/T inadequate understanding of what makes a good photograph aeb still can't get that image the way you want it or visualize it, even with all the focal lengths covered.

Goal: Photographer will improve photograph quality aeb more aesthetically correct and pleasing photographs.

Intervention: 1. Learn about basic compositional rules, understand the purpose and how to draw out line, shape, form, pattern, texture, and where and how to place these elements, and why they work that way. 2. Learn to listen to your gut when what you see in the viewfinder/etc evokes the desired feeling or idea. 3. Learn what you can do to alter a composition that isn't quite right and make it into one that you can feel IS right. 4. Get equipment that is capable of producing the effects you want and allowing you to get that gut feeling more often, more easily, and with a greater variety of scenes/situations.

Evaluation: Are you successful?

You are not an advanced amateur. I am an advanced amateur. I pretend to be good enough to get hired to take photos of people, and so far they don't seem to object to what I give them. I await the time when I am good enough to really deserve to be paid.

If I were you, I'd probably get the focal ranges or apertures I think I need at the time, then I'd wonder why my photos aren't any better, then I'd do a lot of learning so I can figure out what I'm doing wrong and what I should be doing instead. Then after that, I'd probably buy some more equipment that makes my job of creating the images I want easier.