Lens Suggestion needed

DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
edited January 5, 2005 in Cameras
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?
Moderator Emeritus
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
«1

Comments

  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2005
    24-70 2.9l
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2005
    wxwax wrote:
    24-70 2.9l

    you mean the $1200 lens? I wish!

    I was thinking....hmmm maybe $900 less....
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited 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.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • dkappdkapp Registered Users Posts: 985 Major grins
    edited 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
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited 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
  • tmlphototmlphoto Registered Users Posts: 1,444 Major grins
    edited 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.
    Thomas :D

    TML Photography
    tmlphoto.com
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited 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
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2005
    DavidTO wrote:
    you mean the $1200 lens? I wish!

    I was thinking....hmmm maybe $900 less....
    They're less, used.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,694 moderator
    edited 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.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited 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.
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited 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.

    13549435-Th.jpg

    See larger image at:
    http://mercphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/340822/1/13549435
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited 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?
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited 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.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited 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!
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • gregneilgregneil Registered Users Posts: 255 Major grins
    edited 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...
    There's a thin line between genius and stupid.
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited 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.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,694 moderator
    edited 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... :D 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. :D:D
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited 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... :D 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. :D:D

    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?
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited 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.
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited 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.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • OlgaJOlgaJ Registered Users Posts: 146 Major grins
    edited 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
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,694 moderator
    edited 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 :D
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • luckyrweluckyrwe Registered Users Posts: 952 Major grins
    edited 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.
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited 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.
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • luckyrweluckyrwe Registered Users Posts: 952 Major grins
    edited 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!
  • dkappdkapp Registered Users Posts: 985 Major grins
    edited 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
  • cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited 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)
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited January 5, 2005
    cmr164 wrote:
    100-400L lenses on.

    What do you think of this lens? Is it sharp? Focus fast? Worth buying? Thanks.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited 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? deal.gif
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • luckyrweluckyrwe Registered Users Posts: 952 Major grins
    edited 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. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.