Lens Advice Needed

ShebaJo

:dunno Hi. I just got my 20D (10-04-04), its my 1st Canon & 1st dSLR. I bought the Canon 24-85mm F3.5/4.5 USM... I intended to switch to the Canon 17-85 IS when Wolf gets it in stock. BUT... Two buddies that have the 17-85 IS say that they do not like it for closer shots, both are thinking they should switch to the 24-85. Another friend says the 28-135 IS is my best bet, also a macro and the the Canon 70-300 IS. I have no experience with Canon, need help before my 30 days at Wolf runs out. I like to shoot flowers (macro) wildlife (70-300) and landscapes... with which lens... 24-85 or the 17-85 IS or the 28-135?:dunno Thanks Sheila

wxwax

Sheila, if budget is not an issue, you could go for the pricey L glass.

16-35 2.8L
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L

gubbs

We're in the same boat Sheila, I've just tied up a deal for a used 10D (which all being well I will pick up on Saturday). I've no lenses at all!
I've ordered a Canon 50mm 1.4 to get me started, (Hope I've done the right thing .)
I've no real idea what else I need, from looking at my 8080 shots I tend to shoot a lot at the wider end of the range, so I was thinking about starting with a 17-40L f4 or 16-35L f2.8 but what a price difference, and I have no feel for whether that extra speed is worth the extra cash. I was hoping that after a couple of weeks of experience with the 50mm that I'd understand what that extra stop actually means to me and then decide. Should I be considering any other lenses ?

Thanks

mercphoto

Lenses
First, I love my 50mm/1.4 lens. Very sharp, great constrast and color, an excellent portrait lens. I also have the 28-135 lens. Its a very good "everyday" lens. Sharp, good color, reasonably priced, not too big. It is not quite as good as the 24-70/2.48L but is more useful and less money. Its a trade-off, and I'm happy.

I recently sold a 75-300/IS lens because I like my 70-200/2.8L so much more. The detail difference, it focuses sharper, better color. The difference is quite large. I was happy with the 75-300 until I got the better lens. Granted, it was four times as much money for a lens that had less reach, so you would expect the images to be better.

I've heard from several sources the 70-300 DO is better than the IS/USM version, you might want to check that out.

One thing you might want to ask yourself is how "fast" a lens you want. For flowers a wide aperture can make for stunning pictures. An f/5.6 might not cut it, you might want f/4 or f/2.8. Consider the 70-200/f4 lens. I've grown addicted to fast lenses myself.

My arsenal: 50/1.4, 28-135, and 70-200/2.8L. If I had to add another lens, it would be the 16-35/2.8L or a Tamron equivalent.

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

Sheila, if budget is not an issue, you could go for the pricey L glass.

16-35 2.8L
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L

Sid is correct, of course if money is not an object - I would suggest that you consider primes 50mm first ( f1.4 or f1.8 ) then an 85-100mm f1.8-f2.8, then a 21-24mm in f2.8. And then longer or faster lenses - prime or zoom as needed and you can afford. Cheap zooms with smaller aperature are suspect as to quality.

The plan I have oultlined is probably how most 35mm SLR shooters have approached purchasing lenses for 40 years. 50mm, then 2x50mm, then 1/2x50mm, 4x50mm etc. But do not settle for cheaper lenses - they are like cheap tools - they just make you wish you have bought the good tools to start with. And rememeber that the really good quality Canon lenses will be useful years from now when you no longer use the 10D, but have moved on to a better camera body. Buy GOOD glass - it is more satisfying to use and retains its resale value much better. Just my 2 cents.

I do own and use a 24-70 f2.8L and a 50mm f1.4 and use them both. I also use a 70-200 f2.8L as well as 100 mm macro and an 85mmf1.8 portrait lens. They are all good, but the first lens I bought was a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI, and I found it very useful - I still use it today on my 20D. And it can be had for about $370. Mine has been tack sharp and with good color. It is not a Canon 24-70 f2.8L but it is about 1/4 the price and is about 1/3 the weight and size as well.

The Canon 28-135 IS is a great little walk around lens and relatively inexpensive - Not a large aperature, but very useful with IS with a 20D.

mercphoto

Lenses

pathfinder wrote:

I do own and use a 24-70 f2.8L and a 50mm f1.4 and use them both. ...but the first lens I bought was a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI, and I found it very useful - I still use it today on my 20D. And it can be had for about $370. Mine has been tack sharp and with good color. It is not a Canon 24-70 f2.8L but it is about 1/4 the price and is about 1/3 the weight and size as well.

How "off" a Canon L-glass is it? Was the L worth the price delta? Also, how is the Tamron 28-105 2.8?

wxwax

Just to point out the obvious - the faster lenses aren't only good for background blur... they're also extremely handy when the light gets low. I rarely shoot with a flash, so a big aperature matters a lot to me. (As does low noise at high ISO and with long exposures - I'm about to write a big check to address that need.)

pathfinder

mercphoto wrote:

How "off" a Canon L-glass is it? Was the L worth the price delta? Also, how is the Tamron 28-105 2.8?

I have excellent images with the 28-75 Tamron DI on a 10D, but it probably suffers from more flare when shooting into a light source than the Canon 24-70 L f2.8
Is it worth the price differential, I do not know - depends on your needs and your resources. The lens barrel of the Tamron DI is probably polycarbanate and glass fibre, the Canon is Magnesium. I think one of the main differences between the best from Canon and Nikon is not always in optical quality, but what I call "build" quality - robustness of mechanical construction. Pick up a Canon L telephoto and it is heavy and much of the weight is in the lens barrel itself. L lenses are designed for heavy professional usage - I doubt the Tamron lenses will be as tolerant of hundreds and hundreds of frames a day, day after day, Nor will their focusing motors last as long I bet with heavy pro daily usage. That does not mean that they will not produce excellent images - they will and do. I have numerous very sharp macros shot with a Tamron 180 f3.5 DI that I doubt could be improved upon by the similar Canon lens.


This is an image with a 28-75 Tamron DI


I do not think the Tamron 28-105 f2.8 is in the same ballpark as the 28-75 DI tho. Check the opinions at photo.do

leebase

There are an infinite variety of opinions on lenses. I'll offer mine.

The 28-135 IS lens is loved by many. Not so much by me. The IS is very nice and it's one of the least expensive lenses with IS. However, if your subjects move, the ability to hold the camera still at 1/20 of a second isn't going to help. Another thing I don't like about this lens is the range. It does not fit well in a system of other lenses. Most of your long zooms start at 70, like the 70-200. Folks who like this range tend to be those who like a one lense solution.

If you like this lens, it makes senst to go with the 17-85 IS instead. It's basically the same lens only shifted to the wide end...on your 20D it'll be like having the 28-135 is on a full frame camera.

So what did I choose? I went with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 because of the wide aperature and sharp image. It's considered to be near "L" quality for a lot less than the Canon 24-70 lens (which is a very nice lens).

The 50mm f1.8 is a must. It's called the "plastic fantastic" and for $75 you can't beat it. I think it's Canon's way of getting you hooked on quality lenses so you start shelling out the big bucks for their other quality glass.

In the telephoto range I went with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 -- again for the wide aperature, excellent quality, and it's significantly cheaper than Canon's fine 70-200 IS and non IS L lenses.

On the wide end folks rave about the Canon 17-40 L but it's an f/4 lens and that's a full stop slower than what I like to buy. Currently I have my kit lens the 18-55 to give me wide when I need it. I'm still looking to fill out this part of my range with a high quality lens.

You can pretty well guarantee that the Canon "L" lenses are the best lenses. With careful planning and reading reviews, I think you can find suitable third party lenses that are nonetheless, quality lenses.

If you can, stay away from the consumer quality lenses. The ones that have wide ranges (like 28-200) and slow aperatures (like f5.6)

Buying poor quality glass is like buying a very expensive stereo and very cheap sounding speakers.

Also, it helps to plan out your lenses as a set....even before you buy them. I reccomend the 50mm f1.8 and the kit lens (18-55) as they get you going for not much money. Then you aim your quality glass money at the most important range for you. For me, the mid telephoto (28-75) and telephoto (70-200) were far more important than wide, which is why I filled out that part of my set with quality glass first.

Hope this helps. I'm one who likes zooms...and my choices reflect that. Others prefer primes...but the rest of the theory holds the same. Buy quality glass, and fill out the most important ranges first.

Lee

tmlphoto

wxwax wrote:

(As does low noise at high ISO and with long exposures - I'm about to write a big check to address that need.)

Do I smell a 1DmII or dare I say a 1DsMII?

I would recommend the 28-135 IS as a great first lens. I tend to use it alot, despite adding some L glass to my bag. Eventually I plan on a 24-70L 2.8 and a 70-200 IS 2.8. Maybe I'll sell after getting them, but I doubt it. It is very sharp IMHO for a non L lens, and is a great "traveling" lens when you don't want to carry around the whole bag. As advised above, I think it is a good idea to have a "plan" before buying any lens. My 75-300 II, suffers from poor sharpness and constrast and I would not recommend it. Hope this helps.

wxwax

tmlphoto wrote:

Do I smell a 1DmII or dare I say a 1DsMII?

The former. I like the burst rate and low noise. I'd sure like a full frame on my 16-35 lens, that would be sweet, but the other stuff is more important. I'm a happy man tonight.

tmlphoto

wxwax wrote:

The former. I like the burst rate and low noise. I'd sure like a full frame on my 16-35 lens, that would be sweet, but the other stuff is more important. I'm a happy man tonight.

I planning on giving one to myself this christmas. I feel a little quilty seeing as I just got my 10D last chrismas. Will the bleeding never stop.....

wxwax

tmlphoto wrote:

I planning on giving one to myself this christmas. I feel a little quilty seeing as I just got my 10D last chrismas. Will the bleeding never stop.....

No, never! I've resigned myself to that. My rationalization tonight was that when I'm old and poor, I'll still have the gear to make good photographs. At some point this will have to get to the point that computers are approaching - we really don't need much more disk space, memory, CPU speed, improved graphics cards. Surely the same will happen in a few years with digital cameras?

gubbs

Thanks for all the help, the Tamron 28-75 looks very interesting and at 1/4 of the price I'm very tempted. It seems to get good reviews pretty much everywhere. From what I can gather it is very close to the L optically (some say better at certain ranges) but lacks the L build quality. The only other negative that is mentioned, is that the AF is slower? Will I even notice after the 8080?

I'd love to go for all L glass, but when your starting from nothing its a huge outlay and my wife has this idea that anything I spend on camera gear she should spend on clothes :yikes

I think I ought to point out the resale value of camera gear compared to her wardrobe.... why didn't I think of that before

miketaylor01

Not sure if this helps buch but..
of all three of the lenses I have I am very very very happy with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX. I know I probably shouldnt even be posting in here seeing as I have only had my camera for about 5 days now but that is why I am posting this. Check out my entry in the current challenge. That pic was taken at f5.6 200 mm handheld. If I can get am image like this it has to be a good lens. Just my opinion. BTW I also have the Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5 EX and 28-70 F2.8 EX. 70-200 is my fav and is much much less than the L glass.

cmr164

miketaylor01 wrote:

of all three of the lenses I have I am very very very happy with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX. I know I probably shouldnt even be posting in here seeing as I have only had my camera for about 5 days now but that is why I am posting this. Check out my entry in the current challenge. That pic was taken at f5.6 200 mm handheld. If I can get am image like this it has to be a good lens. Just my opinion. BTW I also have the Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5 EX and 28-70 F2.8 EX. 70-200 is my fav and is much much less than the L glass.

On an old 2mp DCS520 (EOS D2000) the following pic was handheld with the 100-400L. Never doubt the quality of 'L' glass

miketaylor01

Please dont misunderstand
I was not trying to compare the quality of a Sigma EX to a cannon L lens. I wouldnt even begin to say that it is a comparabe lens seeing as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX coast half what the Cannon 70-200 f2.8L does. I paid $640 for my Sigma 70-200 and the cannon 70-200 L costs almost $1600. Now having said that I was just letting those who are in the market for a 70-200 and dont have the money right now for the L glass know that the Sigma is a very nice lens in my opinion. Just wanted to make sure that you didnt think that I was saying the Sigma was better or anything like that. The same thing happened to me the other day in my SD10 thread where someone started to tell me how the Sigma SD9 doesnt compare to the 1DMII. I couldt figure out how he was making the comparison between a $1000 camera and a $4000 camera. I hope you all dont think that im coming in here trying to talk up my Sigma equipment. I love all my equipment and just wish to share my results with everyone. Hope this clears up and confusion.

cmr164

miketaylor01 wrote:

I was not trying to compare the quality of a Sigma EX to a cannon L lens. I wouldnt even begin to...
... I hope you all dont think that im coming in here trying to talk up my Sigma equipment. I love all my equipment and just wish to share my results with everyone. Hope this clears up and confusion.

There was a reason for the big . I wasn't intending to pick on you at all!! I promise. Just balancing the presentation. Bear in mind that the pic of the moon was taken with a 1998 model 2MP dslr and the lens is clearly bearing much of the burden. As for the differences between a $4K dslr and a $1k dslr, they tend not to be optical, as that is in the glass but in AF speed, buffer size & speed, durability/build quality, and features. It is reasonable to compare pics from a $1k D10 and a $4k 1DMarkII. And in balancing the foveon vs beyer trade offs it is reasonble to compare equivalent sensor counts. Someday soon I will post a basic comparison of the foveon's clearly superior pixel quality and the (lesser sensor count) 1DMII 8.2mp sensor with clearly superior resolution. So far I am astounded at the quality of the foveon image but I really wish you would email me a raw sample so I can draw the full benefit from the foveon as a fpg has already thrown away 50% of the foveon's image. Click on my URL below for an email addr.

miketaylor01

Charles..
Ok I have been trying to send you a RAW file for over an hour now and neither yahoo or my other email server will allow me to attach a RAW file to an email to send. I will keep trying to figure out a way to do this and hope I do but have had no luck so far. Any ideas how this can be done? I am at a loss as to why it would reject the files from even being attached.

Xney

I have/had the 28-135 IS and it is a very good midrange zoom. The macro mode is pretty decent and you get a nice close zoom for an okay magnification factor. (For a non-macro lens it's not terrible) It's kind of a jack of all trades lens, good at most but not great at anything.

If you want to shoot landscapes, I think the 28mm end isn't wide enough on a DSLR 1.6 crop factor, so I have to suggest the 17-85mm IS lens purely in terms of length options. I'm not familiar with the quality of that lens, though.

One of the big factors in the low to midrange zooms that's different from the higher end ones is the max aperture. f/3.5 is okay, for example, on the 28mm end of the 28-135mm lens, but it gets very slow on the long end!! It can make a difference depending on the conditions.

-Karl

miketaylor01

Shebajo and CMR..
Maybe I can satisfy both of you with this one post. As I said earlier I have not been able to get my email accounts to send a RAW file . I have absolutely no clue why. But in the meantime, here is a photo I just found on the Sigma forum at Dpreview.
http://www.pbase.com/imagemeister/image/35099441/original
The was taken with the SD9 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8EX on board. The photo shows both the incredible color and image quality of the SDs and the performance of the 70-200. I think it does better justice to the lens than my pictures have been able to. I hope this helps. The person who took this picture claims that he did no post processing to the picture. Just thought I would share and I hope this will hold you over until I can figure out a good way to get a RAW file of my own to you.

Change.. I just found an addition to the original thread that I pulled this pic from and he did make some correction to the image in post. Sorry If I misled someone who might have read this already. If anyone is interested in what adjustments were made to the original here is the thread.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=10706415

gubbs

I lost out on a Tamron 28 - 75 2.8 on ebay last night, new in the UK they sell for around £260, this one went for £213 with the shipping, I think for that bit extra I'd rather have a warranty!

Anyway, If I do get a new one I think I would prefer to start wider and was thinking about the Tamron 17 - 35 2.8, has anyone got any thoughts about it? FM review are good but there aren't many of them