More Lens Musings: Wide or Long?

Richard · June 17, 2006

I bought my 20D about 8 months ago, along with the 18-55 kit lens for wide angle, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/4L. I am now thinking about the next step and am having doubts. My original plan was to get a Canon 17-40 f/4L. I have used the kit lens very little. Partly, I think that's because the image quality isn't as good as that of my other two lenses, so I only put the kit lens on when I absolutely have to. Perhaps I simply don't grasp the uses of wide angle well. I had been assuming that I would use a better wide angle lens more often. Does that make any sense?

I love the 70-200 and use it frequently, but (naturally) I would like to have more reach. So I started considering going longer rather than wider. I have two options in mind at the moment. Tamron makes a 200-500 f/5-6.3 zoom that has received very good reviews, though there don't seem to be very many people actually using it. I don't know what that means--if anything--but it makes me a bit wary. On the other hand, it would complement my current range nicely, and I have been quite happy with the Tamron lens I have. The other idea is to sell the 70-200 and get a Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS instead (I can't afford both). That would leave me with a bit of a hole in my coverage, but I am not too concerned about it. I almost always shoot hand-held, so the IS part is appealing.

Eventually, I will certainly want both, but my budget will only allow one this year. My rational side says that I would become a better rounded photographer with the wide angle. My boy-with-toys side says going longer might be more fun. Except when I am traveling, most of what I shoot is urban, outdoors stuff. I haven't found a niche yet. So, what to do? Wide or long? Anybody else faced a similar choice? What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Scott_Quier · June 17, 2006

rsinmadrid wrote:

I bought my 20D about 8 months ago, along with the 18-55 kit lens for wide angle, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/4L. I am now thinking about the next step and am having doubts. My original plan was to get a Canon 17-40 f/4L. I have used the kit lens very little. Partly, I think that's because the image quality isn't as good as that of my other two lenses, so I only put the kit lens on when I absolutely have to. Perhaps I simply don't grasp the uses of wide angle well. I had been assuming that I would use a better wide angle lens more often. Does that make any sense?

I love the 70-200 and use it frequently, but (naturally) I would like to have more reach. So I started considering going longer rather than wider. I have two options in mind at the moment. Tamron makes a 200-500 f/5-6.3 zoom that has received very good reviews, though there don't seem to be very many people actually using it. I don't know what that means--if anything--but it makes me a bit wary. On the other hand, it would complement my current range nicely, and I have been quite happy with the Tamron lens I have. The other idea is to sell the 70-200 and get a Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS instead (I can't afford both). That would leave me with a bit of a hole in my coverage, but I am not too concerned about it. I almost always shoot hand-held, so the IS part is appealing.

Eventually, I will certainly want both, but my budget will only allow one this year. My rational side says that I would become a better rounded photographer with the wide angle. My boy-with-toys side says going longer might be more fun. Except when I am traveling, most of what I shoot is urban, outdoors stuff. I haven't found a niche yet. So, what to do? Wide or long? Anybody else faced a similar choice? What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

I figured I wanted both ends. I started with the 28-75, bought the BigMa. Sold the BigMa because I needed IS more than I needed the additional 100mm so bought the Sigma 80-400. Then I got the Canon 10-22 (love it). I will, eventually, sell the 80-400 and get the Canon 100-400L and replace the Tamron with the Canon 24-105L IS. Oh, I also have the Sigma 1.4TC that will probably be replaced with the Canon 1.4.

OK, that was the background but it didn't directly respond to your question. For me, it was no contest as I was a lot more interested in shooting wildlife then buildings, so I went long first.

Given:

You are not satisfied with low quality images (duh!)
You currently do most of your shooting in urban settings.

I would

Drop the 28-75 and pick up the Canon 24-105L IS. This will get you a bit longer, cover the gap you will have when/if you replace the 70-200 with the 100-400L, and provide you the IS for that hand-holding work.
When/if you start shooting wildlife, then I would consider the longer glass.

Disclaimer: This is free advise and is probably worth what you paid. But, I hope it helps.

Manfr3d · June 17, 2006

rsinmadrid wrote:

I bought my 20D about 8 months ago, along with the 18-55 kit lens for wide angle, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/4L. I am now thinking about the next step and am having doubts. My original plan was to get a Canon 17-40 f/4L. I have used the kit lens very little. Partly, I think that's because the image quality isn't as good as that of my other two lenses, so I only put the kit lens on when I absolutely have to. Perhaps I simply don't grasp the uses of wide angle well. I had been assuming that I would use a better wide angle lens more often. Does that make any sense?

I love the 70-200 and use it frequently, but (naturally) I would like to have more reach. So I started considering going longer rather than wider. I have two options in mind at the moment. Tamron makes a 200-500 f/5-6.3 zoom that has received very good reviews, though there don't seem to be very many people actually using it. I don't know what that means--if anything--but it makes me a bit wary. On the other hand, it would complement my current range nicely, and I have been quite happy with the Tamron lens I have. The other idea is to sell the 70-200 and get a Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS instead (I can't afford both). That would leave me with a bit of a hole in my coverage, but I am not too concerned about it. I almost always shoot hand-held, so the IS part is appealing.

Eventually, I will certainly want both, but my budget will only allow one this year. My rational side says that I would become a better rounded photographer with the wide angle. My boy-with-toys side says going longer might be more fun. Except when I am traveling, most of what I shoot is urban, outdoors stuff. I haven't found a niche yet. So, what to do? Wide or long? Anybody else faced a similar choice? What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Check out the Sigma 10-20mm/4-5.6 and the Canon 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS,
which one you want solely depends on you. The 70-200 f4 also works
pretty well with the 1.4x TC at f5.6. Seems like there is no free ticket
to reach and hand-holdability.

saurora · June 17, 2006

Decisions, decisions!!! It's really hard when you can't find your "niche", especially in photography. I'm the same way Richard...so you end up wanting all kinds of lenses to explore with. My first lens was the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS. I like it because its so versatile....it's my walkabout lens. Mostly I love the IS and the fact that I always get sharp shots with this L lens. And it's not so heavy for me. I believe Andy has one and uses his a lot also. I also have the Canon 10-22 but have not utilized it very well yet. I just am not sure of it uses? I did use it last week finally, taking some shots inside a retail store. It worked quite well. If I had to choose for myself, I would choose the 24-105....it's a nice range.

Richard · June 17, 2006

Thanks for your comments, Scott, Manfr3d and Susan.

I guess I was rambling a bit, so let me clarify. I am quite happy with my Tamron 28-75 for walkaround use and the Canon 70-200 f/4L. What I am trying to figure out is whether to add better qualilty below 28 mm or greater reach beyond 200 mm. I want both, but have to choose only one for this year.

Cheers,

saurora · June 17, 2006

I guess we were rambling, too, Richard! It's like comparing apples and oranges. You sound about like me as far as not feeling comfortable with the wide, and often longing for something longer. Myself, I wish I had a longer lens. The longest I have is the Canon 200mm L fixed length..no IS. I am considering replacing that lens, but I want to give it a fair shake. I miss the IS for certain. The type of shots I've seen you take (lots of street shooting) could lend itself well to a super wide lens and you will enjoy the sharpness of the 17-40 L, I'm sure. You know of course, Richard, there is no easy answer here!!! I'm sure that's why you're asking us........so we can confuse you more!!! I usually take one lens when I go out. It doesn't matter which one it is.........I always wish I had the other one at some point during my shooting!

DJ-S1 · June 17, 2006

rsinmadrid wrote:

I bought my 20D about 8 months ago, along with the 18-55 kit lens for wide angle, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/4L. I am now thinking about the next step and am having doubts. My original plan was to get a Canon 17-40 f/4L. I have used the kit lens very little.

Boy, I could cut-and-paste that into a bio of myself. :uhoh Weird, we have the same camera and the same lens lineup and bought them around the same time too...

The only difference between you and me is that I bought the "Bigma" (Sigma 50-500) from Scott Quier so I have the long end covered now. Here's the interesting part - now that I have it, I may resell it. My reasons? Although I have a good tripod, my shooting preference is mainly handheld and the Bigma isn't really right for handheld. I also always longed to get those great wildlife shots and you need reach for that, but now that I've tried it I find it really isn't for me. Not right now, anyway.

It's a very nice lens, but it just isn't meshing with my style. So the lens is sitting in my bag, taking up space and adding weight for little return. If you want to buy it and give it a try for yourself, send me a PM.

So now I am contemplating the wide side because the 17mm of the kit lens is nice but still not wide enough (on a 20D). I'm also considering swapping the Bigma and the Tamron for the 24-105 f4L IS, and then adding something that can hit 10 or 12mm on the wide end.

I guess I'm just another rambler in this thread, but hopefully my experience with the Bigma may help you as you ponder your options. Good luck and let us know what you decide and how it works out for you.

Scott_Quier · June 17, 2006

DJ-S1 wrote:

It's a very nice lens, but it just isn't meshing with my style. So the lens is sitting in my bag, taking up space and adding weight for little return. If you want to buy it and give it a try for yourself, send me a PM.

I guess I'm just another rambler in this thread, but hopefully my experience with the Bigma may help you as you ponder your options. Good luck and let us know what you decide and how it works out for you.

I can vouch for the quality of that particular copy of the BigMa (unless DJ-S1 dropped it and I think he would have mentioned it if he had

). I really liked it, just wanted the IS/OS.

P.S. - In the "for what it's worth column", I can als vouch for him as a buyer - he and I both worked really hard to make sure the sale of that lens worked for the both of us. He's a good guy!

And, finally, what he said - let us know which way you jump on this decision.

Richard · June 17, 2006

saurora wrote:

You know of course, Richard, there is no easy answer here!!! I'm sure that's why you're asking us........so we can confuse you more!!!

Yes, you're right, of course. I suppose I understand all the tradeoffs well enough by now. Sometimes I don't know what I really think until I hear myself saying it. Sometimes someone else says something in passing that makes everything fall into place. Maybe I'm just looking for therapy on a limited budget. Oh, and did I mention this recurring dream I've been having?

Richard · June 17, 2006

Scott_Quier wrote:

P.S. - In the "for what it's worth column", I can als vouch for him as a buyer - he and I both worked really hard to make sure the sale of that lens worked for the both of us. He's a good guy!
.

Thanks for the reference, Scott and for the offer, DJ-S1. I don't really see a Bigma in my future, though. That's one, big, heavy lens and I not a big, strong guy. Whatever I get, it's going to have to work for me mostly for hand-held shooting. The weight of the Canon is also a concern, even though it is lighter than the Bigma, but I should think the IS would help to compensate--at least for the pics if not the arms.

Cheers,

BigAl · June 18, 2006

rsinmadrid wrote:

I don't really see a Bigma in my future, though. That's one, big, heavy lens and I not a big, strong guy. Whatever I get, it's going to have to work for me mostly for hand-held shooting. The weight of the Canon is also a concern, even though it is lighter than the Bigma, but I should think the IS would help to compensate--at least for the pics if not the arms.

Richard, have a look at this gadget:
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/showthread.php?t=1862
I use it with the Bigma very successfully and have taken some stunning pics (I think so anyway

) with the combo.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=36102
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=35917
You can also check out my recent gallery where everything was taken with the Bigma
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/gallery/1545869

My brother-in-law has the Tamron 200-500, and you don't win all that much weight-wise (especially if you're going to be carrying it all day). I haven't tried taking too many pics with it, but I don't think it's in the same league quality-wise as the Bigma.

As to the short end, I've just bought a 2nd hand Sigma 18-125, and at this stage (early days) I don't think the quality is too much better than the kit lens, especially towards 125mm.

Jeffro · June 18, 2006

rsinmadrid wrote:

I bought my 20D about 8 months ago, along with the 18-55 kit lens for wide angle, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/4L. I am now thinking about the next step and am having doubts. My original plan was to get a Canon 17-40 f/4L. I have used the kit lens very little. Partly, I think that's because the image quality isn't as good as that of my other two lenses, so I only put the kit lens on when I absolutely have to. Perhaps I simply don't grasp the uses of wide angle well. I had been assuming that I would use a better wide angle lens more often. Does that make any sense?

I love the 70-200 and use it frequently, but (naturally) I would like to have more reach. So I started considering going longer rather than wider. I have two options in mind at the moment. Tamron makes a 200-500 f/5-6.3 zoom that has received very good reviews, though there don't seem to be very many people actually using it. I don't know what that means--if anything--but it makes me a bit wary. On the other hand, it would complement my current range nicely, and I have been quite happy with the Tamron lens I have. The other idea is to sell the 70-200 and get a Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS instead (I can't afford both). That would leave me with a bit of a hole in my coverage, but I am not too concerned about it. I almost always shoot hand-held, so the IS part is appealing.

Eventually, I will certainly want both, but my budget will only allow one this year. My rational side says that I would become a better rounded photographer with the wide angle. My boy-with-toys side says going longer might be more fun. Except when I am traveling, most of what I shoot is urban, outdoors stuff. I haven't found a niche yet. So, what to do? Wide or long? Anybody else faced a similar choice? What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Have you considered keeping the 70-200L F4, adding a 1.4x and or a 2x tc to it, in addition to getting the 17-40L F4?

You will love the 17-40L, and I'm betting the 1.4x tc, wouldn't hurt your image quality. The 2x might hurt it a bit, and you would have to suffer through manual focus. Choices.....

Richard · June 18, 2006

Thanks, Al. Clever idea, though it might look just the tiniest bit kinky when you are not shooting.

I looked at your gallery and the quality is impressive. More food for thought.

Regards,

Richard · June 18, 2006

Jeffro wrote:

Have you considered keeping the 70-200L F4, adding a 1.4x and or a 2x tc to it, in addition to getting the 17-40L F4? You will love the 17-40L, and I'm betting the 1.4x tc, wouldn't hurt your image quality. The 2x might hurt it a bit, and you would have to suffer through manual focus. Choices.....

Yeah, I have been thinking about this as well. The 1.4x might be a good mid-term compromise. Not quite as long as I would like, but I gather that's always going to be true. It wouldn't give me IS, but I wouldn't lose AF.

Anyone have any experience using the Canon 1.4x TC with a Tamron 28-75? Or the Tamron 1.4x TC with a Canon 70-200 f/4? Just trying to think this through.

Thanks, Jeffro.

BigAl · June 18, 2006

rsinmadrid wrote:

Thanks, Al. Clever idea, though it might look just the tiniest bit kinky when you are not shooting.

Richard, it probably looks more kinky than you realise, as I carry the camera/lens combo on the monopod with the monopod in that pouch while I'm walking around

More Lens Musings: Wide or Long?

Comments