Lense question

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Major grinsBournemouth, UKPosts: 0 Major grins
edited March 31, 2008 in Cameras
I currently have a Canon 400D with two kit lense 18-55mm and 55-200mm and a new lense, a 70-300 IS USM. I am now looking at a smaller lense and I am tied between the 18-55mm IS and the 17-85mm IS USM or maybe even the 28-135mm IS USM

On paper the 18-55mm s a fraction faster, and I feel the 28-135mm is to much overlap on the 70-300mm. I certainly can't afford anything more than the 17-85mm IS USM

I shoot a lot of Traction Kite sport and some wild life.

I welcome your thoughts

Tim

Comments

  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2008
    draggin wrote:
    I currently have a Canon 400D with two kit lense 18-55mm and 55-200mm and a new lense, a 70-300 IS USM. I am now looking at a smaller lense and I am tied between the 18-55mm IS and the 17-85mm IS USM or maybe even the 28-135mm IS USM

    On paper the 18-55mm s a fraction faster, and I feel the 28-135mm is to much overlap on the 70-300mm. I certainly can't afford anything more than the 17-85mm IS USM

    I shoot a lot of Traction Kite sport and some wild life.

    I welcome your thoughts

    Tim

    Wild life and Kite sport will probably requite long lenses, your
    70-300 IS is a good start and will do the job in sufficient light.
    I would suggest to try out the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 and/or
    the Tamron 28-75mm/2.8. Both are excellent and fast lenses.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • bhowdybhowdy Registered Users Posts: 658 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2008
    I have to agree that taking a look at the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 would be a good idea. I own this lens and it is great. Hard to beat the image quality for the price. Tons of positive reviews all over the internet, just do a google search.
    ________________

    Bob
    Maryville, TN.
    http://bhowdy.smugmug.com/
  • kyeeziekyeezie Registered Users Posts: 290 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2008
    Sorry, wrong thread.
  • CameronCameron Registered Users Posts: 745 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2008
    bhowdy wrote:
    I have to agree that taking a look at the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 would be a good idea. I own this lens and it is great. Hard to beat the image quality for the price. Tons of positive reviews all over the internet, just do a google search.

    I'd also recommend you look at the 17-50 f/2.8. Excellent optical quality - much better than the 17-85 and tons better than the 18-55 IS. Granted, it doesn't have image stabilization, but you'll be much happier with the quality and low-light capabilities with the fixed 2.8 aperture.
    Photos
  • kyeeziekyeezie Registered Users Posts: 290 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2008
    man, i'm having a tough day today.
  • gryphonslair99gryphonslair99 Registered Users Posts: 182 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2008
    Another vote for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It is the only Non-Canon lens I own and one of the few that is not L glass. It is just that good of a lens at a great price.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Major grins Bournemouth, UKPosts: 0 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2008
    Thanks guys, I am now the pround owner of a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

    Tim
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2008
    draggin wrote:
    Thanks guys, I am now the pround owner of a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

    Tim
    clap.gifthumb
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • CameronCameron Registered Users Posts: 745 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2008
    draggin wrote:
    Thanks guys, I am now the pround owner of a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

    Tim

    Great! Let us know how you like it - better yet, post some pics!
    Photos
Sign In or Register to comment.