DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lens pair VOTE
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 12 of 12, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/26/2005 02:02:34 AM · #1
I'm looking to have as few lenses as possible and have come up with a couple of options I would like a consensus on. My objective is to have just a few quality lenses that cover a good majority of the focal range. I am also looking to travel light.

Canon 10-22 for wide angle
Tamron 28-75 for walk around (I'm concerned about the wieght here)
Canon 70-200 for telephoto

or

Canon 17-40 (Worried about redundancy with 28-105)
Canon 28-105 (Worried about quality here, but light)
Canon 70-200 (More redundancy)

Thanks for the input.texttexttexttext

Message edited by author 2005-03-26 02:03:52.
 03/26/2005 02:20:50 AM · #2
Get them all. There is no such thing as redundancy as each lens has its own characteristics. It is fine to have a few overlap. It is also fine to have a gap. You don̢۪t need, nor will you probably use every focal length.

I would suggest primes. When I use zooms it is usually at one focal length anyway, but maybe that̢۪s just me.


03/26/2005 02:38:31 AM · #3
17-40mm 4L
50mm 1.8
70-200mm 4L
03/26/2005 02:59:38 AM · #4
i have both the 17-40 and the 28-105 (as well as a 28/2.8, 50/1.4 and 70-200/4L) and they're not really interchangeable. i don't use the 28-105 much, though, mostly because it's not wide, long or fast enough for my typical uses which would warrant choosing it over one of my other lenses. on a film body it's great. on a 1.6x, not so great. i use it for candid portraits, focus is fast and 4.5 at 105mm is plenty good for background blur.

i second the 17-40, 50 and 70-200 suggestion. even just using the 17-40 and 70-200, you're covered for almost everything in reasonably good light. in low light the 50 is wonderful.

having done it again i probably wouldn't have bought the 28 or the 28-105. i love the 28/2.8 for its size but it's too close to the 17-40 in performance. i'd pick up a 28/1.8 or a 35/2 instead for the difference in aperture.

with the EF-S mount capability (presuming that i'd be sticking with the EF-S bodies) i'd maybe go different if i were thinking of travel. 10-22 would be a great travel lens, and 17-85 IS is a no-brainer lens for the EF-S bodies. such a useful focal length range.
 03/26/2005 03:09:54 AM · #5
How about the Tamron 28-75 instead of the canon 17-40??? I like to get in a little closer on my street shooting. The only thing I would be concerned about is the weight, but is it much heavier than the 17-40?

The 10-22 I think would be a good compliment to the tamron because I would specifically want to shoot wide angle at certain times, but would value getting a little more reach with the tamron without have to use the 70-200.

03/26/2005 05:48:43 AM · #6
Originally posted by RickH:
I'm looking to have as few lenses as possible and have come up with a couple of options I would like a consensus on. My objective is to have just a few quality lenses that cover a good majority of the focal range. I am also looking to travel light.


to travel light and still have quality lenses is not easy,

I´d go for these if you want to travel light and have quality too
Canon 24-70L f2.8 950gr (2.1 lb) $1140
Canon 70-200L f4 707gr (1.56 lb) $580
Canon EF 1.4x II extender. 220gr (0.49 lb) $280

that gives you a total weight of 1877gr (4.15 lb)
and the total price for these toys $2000 at BHphotovideo :)
it´s an expencive package but it´s one that you will never replace.
03/26/2005 06:44:26 AM · #7
Originally posted by RickH:
Canon 10-22 for wide angle

I bought this lens in the last couple of days. If you want shots this wide open then 16mm (10 * 1.6) is fantastic. I do think it's slightly over-priced though, and if you don't think you'll need such a wide lens (and believe me, 16mm is very wide!) it might be worth considering the no doubt higher quality 17-40.

Originally posted by RickH:
Tamron 28-75 for walk around (I'm concerned about the wieght here)

I guess this is the f/2.8 lens. I have the Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX, and it's a pretty nice lens. The problem is with it being f/2.8 throughout the range it's pretty heavy. This is important if you want to travel with the lens.

Originally posted by RickH:
Canon 70-200 for telephoto

The f/4 or f/2.8 versions are all spectacular. I got the f/2.8 but couldn't afford the IS version. Even still, it's a STUNNING lens, and the cornerstone of any pro's mid-telephoto kit.

Originally posted by RickH:
Canon 17-40 (Worried about redundancy with 28-105)

This is the highest rated Canon wide zoom on Fred Miranda, followed by the 10-22. If you don't need such a wide angle, this would be an excellent choice.

Originally posted by RickH:
Canon 28-105 (Worried about quality here, but light)

Here you're trading off convenience against quality. If you're not too worried about the very highest quality and intend to travel with it, I would go for this. If you're shooting weddings, portraits, indoor sports and anything in darker conditions, the 28-75/2.8 would be MUCH better. Never try and shoot indoor sports with these mid-range lenses. :-)

Originally posted by RickH:
Canon 70-200 (More redundancy)

In terms of redundancy, they're really two applications.. If you want a photo at 100mm you will either be on a walk-about with your 28-105, or you'll have your 70-200 at the zoo, or a sports event, or whatever. I don't think you'll even notice the overlap, because I'd imagine you'll be using them for different things.

Originally posted by RickH:
How about the Tamron 28-75 instead of the canon 17-40???

28mm * 1.6 = 44.5mm, which is pretty tight, but as you say, it depends how tight you want to shoot. For landscapes 28mm is a bit telephoto, I would say.

My advice would be to buy a lens or two to start off with and see how you go. A LOT of people on DPC end up replacing lenses because they've gone out and bought a whole bag of lenses to start off with. Building up your kit incrementally makes a lot of sense and ultimately means you won't end up buying lenses you don't use and regret.

EDIT: I think gaurawa and jimmythefish made some excellent suggestions. The 50mm/1.8 is a VERY high quality lens (equal to the 70-200/2.8L in terms of glass resolution), and very cheap too.

Message edited by author 2005-03-26 06:49:08.
 03/26/2005 08:04:07 AM · #8
I'd suggest the following:

Canon 17-40mm f/4L
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Canon 70-200mm f/4L

If you need extra zoom, you may want to consider the 1.4x or 2x Teleconverter.

I personally have the Tamron 28-75mm and the Canon 70-200 f/4L. Both are excellent lenses. I also see what the big hype is about the L series lenses. They are well built, fast and the optics are amazing.

Tamron has done an excellent job with the 28-75mm lens. It is fast, very sharp and decently built (Not an "L" build). The optical quality is excellent and can be compared to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. For the price, I doubt you can find anything else that can compete with this lens.
 03/26/2005 10:08:40 AM · #9
I guess now my question is:

Is the 17-40 wide enough vs. the 10-22?????
Does the 17-40 have a more practical advantage???

I think I will definitely get the tamron 28-75. At the price it is a no brainer, and I do need a little more reach for my walk around that the 17-40 just doesn't have.

Message edited by author 2005-03-26 10:14:55.
 03/26/2005 12:31:49 PM · #10
Originally posted by RickH:
I guess now my question is:

Is the 17-40 wide enough vs. the 10-22?????
Does the 17-40 have a more practical advantage???

I think I will definitely get the tamron 28-75. At the price it is a no brainer, and I do need a little more reach for my walk around that the 17-40 just doesn't have.


It all depends on what your perspective is. I guess you need to keep the 1.6x crop factor in mind, 17mm = 27mm and 10mm = 16mm on your camera. I believe that you can rent the 17-40mm, I would try that for a day or so and see if it meets your needs. At least that will help you narrow your decision.

Personally, I would get the 17-40mm, that would fit my needs and you can't beat the price or quality of that lens.
 03/26/2005 12:41:57 PM · #11
I too would get the 17-40. It's really a very traditional 27-65 (my Contax TVS 35mm is a 28-56mm) focal length on a 1.6x, and very useful. It's the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time. It can also be used on a full-frame or 1.3x body, too, should you wish to upgrade in the future.

There's space for both, though. I'm thinking (reluctantly as I plan on going for full-frame in the future) on getting a Sigma 10-20mm when they come out, as I enjoy wide.

Think of the 10-22 and 17-40 as your 16-35 and 28-70 for the 1.6x crowd.
 03/26/2005 01:00:22 PM · #12
Consider the 17-40 and a Sigma 50-500. Pick up the 50 prime if you want. Really depends on your subject matter. If you do not yet know what your typical subject is, then just get either the 50 prime or a mid range tele, until you discover it. Then buy accordingly. For wild life, a 200-300 focal length was never long/close enough for me. For candids, a 24-28 beginning focal length is acceptable. A single focal 50, will let you do anything.....as long as you don't mind your feet being the zoom function.

Lenses are truly a personal matter, dependent upon budget, compromises, and needs. Some needs outweigh budget and compromises. Some don't.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 05:07:49 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 05:07:49 PM EDT.