Lens Suggestion needed

DavidTO · January 3, 2005

I have a Canon DigiRebel, the kit lens, and the Canon 70-200mm f4L.

Needless to say, the L glass is awesome. I'd like to get a lens that compliments it at the wide end. Something, basically, to replace the kit lens. Possibly a prime lens, most likely a zoom, and inexpensive, but worth the money. I mean, that it should be a lens that would be an improvement over the kit lens, otherwise, why buy it, right?

wxwax · January 3, 2005

24-70 2.9l

DavidTO · January 3, 2005

wxwax wrote:

24-70 2.9l

you mean the $1200 lens? I wish!

I was thinking....hmmm maybe $900 less....

mercphoto · January 3, 2005

Tamron

DavidTO wrote:

you mean the $1200 lens? I wish!

I was thinking....hmmm maybe $900 less....

I have heard great things about the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI lens. I actually inquired about it today as well. Roughly $400, near L-glass quality. About all that is stopping me is I also own the Canon 28-135/IS lens. Very nice, larger range, just a bit more money. Not as fast, but does have stabilization. The Tamron probably produces a better picture.

dkapp · January 3, 2005

From a Nikon owner, but this is what I like.

Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 & Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Both lenses together will fit in your $900 budget.

All my images you see on this site are from those 2 lenses. The 17-35 is my favorite.

Dave

Andy · January 3, 2005

steve cavigliano

mercphoto wrote:

I have heard great things about the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI lens. I actually inquired about it today as well. Roughly $400, near L-glass quality. About all that is stopping me is I also own the Canon 28-135/IS lens. Very nice, larger range, just a bit more money. Not as fast, but does have stabilization. The Tamron probably produces a better picture.

i think has this lens. pm him, he's been getting good results from it.

i can also highly recommend the 28-135 i.s. from canon - ask doctorit, he bought mine from me after i get some L glass to replace it. super lens, under $400

andy

tmlphoto · January 3, 2005

andy wrote:

i think has this lens. pm him, he's been getting good results from it.

i can also highly recommend the 28-135 i.s. from canon - ask doctorit, he bought mine from me after i get some L glass to replace it. super lens, under $400

andy

I agree with Andy. The 28-135 IS is a great lens.

Andy · January 3, 2005

tmlphoto wrote:

I agree with Andy. The 28-135 IS is a great lens.

yeah, just remember, on a 1.6x body it's not *that* wide.

take a hard look at the 17-40 f/4L, very well liked. not terribly fast, but a great lens nonetheless, too.

cheers

wxwax · January 3, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

you mean the $1200 lens? I wish!

I was thinking....hmmm maybe $900 less....

They're less, used.

pathfinder · January 3, 2005

wxwax wrote:

They're less, used.

I agree with SID that the 24-70f2.8 L is a great long term investment that will stand you in good stead when you have long since abandoned the 300D.

If the price is too steep, I think dkapp's suggestion about the Tamron 16-35 Di is a great one. I have used the Tamron 28-75 Di for 18 months - many of the covered bridge images I have posted here were shot with it, and I have kept it even after aquiring a Canon 24-70 - that is how satisfied I am with it.

The Canon 28-135 IS is a nice lens, but I prefer large aperatures to IS if I have to chose.

Andy · January 3, 2005

wxwax wrote:

They're less, used.

yup, they sure are. keep an eye on fredmiranda b&s forum, they come up fairly regularly.

mercphoto · January 3, 2005

Fast, or IS?

pathfinder wrote:

The Canon 28-135 IS is a nice lens, but I prefer large aperatures to IS if I have to chose.

Normally I do too. Even if I'm only shotting at f/8. Sometimes IS is nice, though. I shot this, hand-held at 1/30 and 60mm, with that lens. Slow shutter was used due to the fallling water.

See larger image at:
http://mercphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/340822/1/13549435

DavidTO · January 4, 2005

andy wrote:

yeah, just remember, on a 1.6x body it's not *that* wide.

take a hard look at the 17-40 f/4L, very well liked. not terribly fast, but a great lens nonetheless, too.

cheers

The 17-40 looks pretty tempting. With the 1.6x body, do you think I'll miss the 41-69mm range very much? That would give me 17-40 and 70-200. Good enough?

mercphoto · January 4, 2005

How wide is wide

DavidTO wrote:

The 17-40 looks pretty tempting. With the 1.6x body, do you think I'll miss the 41-69mm range very much? That would give me 17-40 and 70-200. Good enough?

As per the 17-40 and the 70-200, if you add a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 in with the mix then you have covered nearly everything. Those small gaps in the middle will not be noticed. I'm not sure I'd want to be without a 50mm given just those two lenses, and a prime would probably be the best way to fill that hole. Filling it with a 24-70, for example, would be expensive.

DavidTO · January 4, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

As per the 17-40 and the 70-200, if you add a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 in with the mix then you have covered nearly everything. Those small gaps in the middle will not be noticed. I'm not sure I'd want to be without a 50mm given just those two lenses, and a prime would probably be the best way to fill that hole. Filling it with a 24-70, for example, would be expensive.

Yeah, that 50 1.4 looks mighty sweet, and I'd love to have a prime. Just not first, since so much of my shooting is on the fly with the kids, I appreciate the flexibility of a zoom.

Thanks!

gregneil · January 4, 2005

I just picked up the 17-40 f/4L. So far so good, but I haven't had much time to play with it yet. I got it to replace the kit lens that came w/ my rebel. I also picked up the 50 f/1.8 at the same time to fill that "hole". I'll post more about it when I've had time to play more... I'm going to some college basketball games my brother plays in next week, so we'll see how that goes...

DavidTO · January 4, 2005

Well, I bit the bullet and got the 17-40 L. It was $641 shipped.

I figure with the 1.6x body, that's gonna be a great range for me, and when I eventually can afford to move to a full frame 1:1 body, then I can get the 50 1.4 prime to fill the gap between the 40 and the bottom end of my 70-200.

That would be nice, to have a decent prime lens like that.

Edit: forgot to mention that I'll be getting the $25 rebate, as well! Bringing the total price to $616.

pathfinder · January 4, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

Well, I bit the bullet and got the 17-40 L. It was $641 shipped.

I figure with the 1.6x body, that's gonna be a great range for me, and when I eventually can afford to move to a full frame 1:1 body, then I can get the 50 1.4 prime to fill the gap between the 40 and the bottom end of my 70-200.

That would be nice, to have a decent prime lens like that.

Edit: forgot to mention that I'll be getting the $25 rebate, as well! Bringing the total price to $616.

That $25 rebate will cover almost a 1/3 of the price of a new 50mm f1.8 - And it is a nice little lens that is often overshadowed by it's big brother the f1.4...

It is so inexpensive that you could then afford the lens reversing adapter to attach it to one of your other lenses and use it for real close macro work.

DavidTO · January 4, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

That $25 rebate will cover almost a 1/3 of the price of a new 50mm f1.8 - And it is a nice little lens that is often overshadowed by it's big brother the f1.4... It is so inexpensive that you could then afford the lens reversing adapter to attach it to one of your other lenses and use it for real close macro work.

True, and you get double the rebate when you order two...I'll have to think about that one.

Edit: the rebate only applies to the 1.4, upon closer examination. And, for now with a 1.6x body, I wonder how much I'll benefit from a 50 lens?

cmr164 · January 4, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

The 17-40 looks pretty tempting. With the 1.6x body, do you think I'll miss the 41-69mm range very much? That would give me 17-40 and 70-200. Good enough?

I know you already did it. Just figure I woud confirm the good choice. I used the 17-35 2.8L and the 100-400L as my only 2 lenses for years. I had the 50 f1.8 but did not use it.

DavidTO · January 4, 2005

cmr164 wrote:

I know you already did it. Just figure I woud confirm the good choice. I used the 17-35 2.8L and the 100-400L as my only 2 lenses for years. I had the 50 f1.8 but did not use it.

I assume that was on a full-frame camera? Film? Or have you been shooting digital SLR that long? The 1.6x equation changes things just enough.

OlgaJ · January 4, 2005

I vote for the 17-40L f/4. It's light and it matches up very nicely with the 70-200L f/4.

My 2nd place recommendation is for the 17-85 IS. It is not as nice as the 17-40 on the wide end, but anything from 24 to 85 is great. It also works well with flash.

I have a good 24-70L but I seldom reach for it. I go for the 17-85 instead.

Olga

pathfinder · January 4, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

True, and you get double the rebate when you order two...I'll have to think about that one.

Edit: the rebate only applies to the 1.4, upon closer examination. And, for now with a 1.6x body, I wonder how much I'll benefit from a 50 lens?

Canon makes a lovely 35mm F1.4 L also, but it is not quite as inexpensive as the 50 f1.4 or the 50 f1.8...... Not sure if the 35 f1.4 is eligable for the rebate though

luckyrwe · January 4, 2005

My 1DII sensor is 1.3x, so the EF-S lenses are not an option. I have the 24-70/2.8. To go wider I have the option of the 16-35 and 17-35, both very much overlap the 24-70. I am still wishing for a 12-24 full frame lens. The 20/2.8 is an option but for the money I may as well get the 17-35. Hmmm.

fish · January 5, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

To go wider I have the option of the 16-35 and 17-35, both very much overlap the 24-70.

I understand that the wide zoom overlaps the 24-70/2.8. So what? It may mean one less lens change, and that's a good thing.

luckyrwe · January 5, 2005

fish wrote:

I understand that the wide zoom overlaps the 24-70/2.8. So what? It may mean one less lens change, and that's a good thing.

I'd rather have more of the shorter end. if the lens was a 16-24 at least that would all be needed for me. A 16-35 only offers me 8mm that I do not already have and 11mm that I do not need. I only need less than half the lens but still have to pay full price!

dkapp · January 5, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

I'd rather have more of the shorter end. if the lens was a 16-24 at least that would all be needed for me. A 16-35 only offers me 8mm that I do not already have and 11mm that I do not need. I only need less than half the lens but still have to pay full price!

Have you given any thought to the Sigma 12-24? It's a FF lens, and from what I understand very good. A lot of Kodak guys love this lens.

Dave

cmr164 · January 5, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

I assume that was on a full-frame camera? Film? Or have you been shooting digital SLR that long? The 1.6x equation changes things just enough.

I started shooting Canon mount dslr with the DCS 520 in 1999 it was a 1.6x imager. That was the camera that I used the 17-35L and the 100-400L lenses on. I do not think I shot even one roll of film after getting the DCS520 (Canon called it the EOS D2000)

mercphoto · January 5, 2005

cmr164 wrote:

100-400L lenses on.

What do you think of this lens? Is it sharp? Focus fast? Worth buying? Thanks.

fish · January 5, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

I'd rather have more of the shorter end. if the lens was a 16-24 at least that would all be needed for me. A 16-35 only offers me 8mm that I do not already have and 11mm that I do not need. I only need less than half the lens but still have to pay full price!

Understood. I love my 24-70/2.8L and don't really like my 17-40/4L, but it was a relatively inexpensive way to go wide. I think I might sell the 17-40 and just get a fast prime like the Canon Fisheye EF 15mm f/2.8 Autofocus Lens. Although, I'd love to try the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. Hey ian408, how about you buy that one and let me try it out, huh?

luckyrwe · January 5, 2005

I got my 70-200 IS L today. The thing is a beast! It looks like the 70-200L but the controls are much more solid. The switches click into place and stay there. I tried shooting with it and I canot tell a difference with the IS on or off, I know it works but maybe I just have a steadier hand than I thought. The rubber gasket is nice too.

The 15mm is a fisheye, I don't want that. The 14mm is an option. The Sigma 12-24 is not that great from what I have heard, but any picture is better than no picture at all.

A buddy has the 100-400, and from what I have seen, my 70-200 and 400/5.6 whoop him any day, although I have two lenses where he has one. I need another body.

I still have time to get another lens or two and the rebate.

Lens Suggestion needed

Comments