| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2005 10:17:40 PM · #1 |
I'm new to lenes and such, so I'm depending on you guys for some advice. Sometime in the next few months I'm going to have to get another lens to suppliment the 18-55 kit lens I currently have. I want zoom capability and am thinking about a 28-200 lens, or something similar, if anyone has any suggestions. What would you get? Any preferences, comments, advice? Since I have a Canon camera, I'd prolly want a Canon lens, but what about Sigma, Quantaray, and Tamron - are they any good? Bail me out, I think I'm in over my head! :D
Message edited by author 2005-07-27 22:21:59.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:29:44 PM · #2 |
You didn't mention budget.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:32:03 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
You didn't mention budget. |
What she said. |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:36:37 PM · #4 |
Ah, the stickler question... Well, as I'm a college kid, and thus always broke, we're looking at prolly $300 max. I know it's pathetically low, but it's all I got...*sigh* Can I even get anything of quality, or should I keep saving pennies and wait?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:40:05 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Ah, the stickler question... Well, as I'm a college kid, and thus always broke, we're looking at prolly $300 max. I know it's pathetically low, but it's all I got...*sigh* Can I even get anything of quality, or should I keep saving pennies and wait? |
"what does your heart tell you?"
- Star wars Episode I
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:40:22 PM · #6 |
| Save your pennies until you can afford something good that you'll be happy with. In the meantime I'd get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for US$74.95 |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:42:50 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Save your pennies until you can afford something good that you'll be happy with. In the meantime I'd get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for US$74.95 |
What he said! I've had mine for about 4 weeks and haven't used anything else. I absolutely LOVE it! Plus, later on, when you get a little more money, you can get the 100mm Macro and converter to stick the 50mm on the end (for suuuuuuuuuper close-ups)!! |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:43:48 PM · #8 |
save dude...for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L -- or the 70-200 f/4L
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:44:31 PM · #9 |
I agree totally with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II but if you could up your budget to around $400, this is a great lens - Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon
Message edited by author 2005-07-27 22:45:19. |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:46:31 PM · #10 |
Want more telephoto range or want wider? What do you shoot most?
Don't but cheap, low quality glass, you'll only end up buying better glass and selling it eventually. If you can't buy the lens you want, save up the money.
Some suggestions from the peanut gallery though...
If you want to do portraits, get the 50mm F1.8 for $80 and save up money for a really good lens.
THe Canon 28-135 IS is a handy lens for under $400. Not the sharpest or best lens around (but by no means bad) but the IS is handy, it's a very handy zoom range and compared to your 18-55 it will be a big upgrade.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 10:47:36 PM · #11 |
| its not a zoom but a great lens. the 85 mm 1.8 and its about 300$ i think. Its such a great focal length. |
|
|
|
07/28/2005 12:59:06 AM · #12 |
I think for the amount of flexibility he wants, and the limited budget he has, primes might not be the best decision (the 50mm f/1.8 MIGHT be an exception - but that's also $75 he could put towards something else). The reach you want is important to know - but you certainly won't find any top quality glass that offers 28-200.
If quality is your main concern, two possible suggestions are the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 or the Tamron 24-135 f/3.5-5.6, which are both supposed to be very sharp (thought he 28-75 boasts a better reputation because of its f/2.8 and slightly better quality). Of course, these don't provide you with anything near 200mm. The Canon 70-200 f/4L is considered the best telephoto zoom under $1000, but will definitely require you to save a couple hundred dollars more.
Message edited by author 2005-07-28 00:59:19.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 01:07:56 AM · #13 |
The thrifty fifty does get old after awhile... I've not used it in months... i've had it for months plus a little.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 02:17:40 AM · #14 |
| Drop some of the Fin Aid $$ on a nice lens. |
|
|
|
07/28/2005 02:30:17 AM · #15 |
My first lense was the 18-55mm kit crap too. I eventually grew sick of it and bought the 50mm f/1.8. The 50mm is an amazing lense for the price. It's damn sharp with an affordable price tag. I've had this one for about a month, and have resorted to the 18-55mm only a few times. Gotta get me a decent wide-angle
Two days ago i bought myself the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro (red-striped version). Very happy with it. Hunts in low light, but as i do product shooting (jewellery) the 1:1.25 (1:2 + 1.6 crop factor), the lense is just perfect for me.
If i'm not mistaken, you should probably avoid using lenses with more than 3x zoom. It's hard and expensive to make a 10x lense without compromising something. |
|
|
|
07/28/2005 04:15:32 AM · #16 |
I would buy something like a Sigma 70-300mm or Canon 75-300mm (non-IS). Both are around or less than $300.
Bear in mind if you get into photography more seriously you WILL replace them, so in honesty it's not necessarily the best investment over time, but the lens will stand you in good stead in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 05:20:05 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
I would buy something like a Sigma 70-300mm or Canon 75-300mm (non-IS). Both are around or less than $300.
Bear in mind if you get into photography more seriously you WILL replace them, so in honesty it's not necessarily the best investment over time, but the lens will stand you in good stead in the meantime. |
Very true that, if you get serious, you will likely want to replace them. I'll suggest that you don't get the Canon 75-300 non-IS though, as I constantly hear that Canon's only advantage in this range for that lens is the IS. Sigma's 70-300 APO Macro II is supposed to be noticeably sharper than its Canon counterpart (the 75-300).
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 08:11:52 AM · #18 |
Thank you all very much! I appreciate all the help and comments. I think I may look closer at the Sigma 70-300 that PaulMdx and brianlh mentioned and if it doesn't strike my fancy, then I'll wait a while and keep saving. Or maybe just drop out of school and buy equipment instead ;) I mean, come on, who really needs college anyway? LOL
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 08:19:40 AM · #19 |
I'd for for a Sigma 70-300m for that kind of money too. Apo macro something is supposed to be a good one. It won't compare to the 70-200L lenses but you'll have a great time with it. You can sell your lens on e-bay later if you want to upgrade; popular lenses get good prices on ebay.
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
I would buy something like a Sigma 70-300mm or Canon 75-300mm (non-IS). Both are around or less than $300.
Bear in mind if you get into photography more seriously you WILL replace them, so in honesty it's not necessarily the best investment over time, but the lens will stand you in good stead in the meantime. |
|
|
|
|
07/28/2005 08:38:20 AM · #20 |
I've got the Tamron 28-75/2.8, which rarely leaves my camera, but I've heard (and seen) good things about the Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5, which is in a similar price bracket. Both would mostly replace (rather than suppliment) your current lens, but are much more versatile and very good optically too. And TBH, I find it rare to be in a situation where I need a long lens, so the 300 end of a 70-300 (or similar) you might find less use for than you expect...
Message edited by author 2005-07-28 08:38:43.
|
|
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: 09/18/2025 03:54:17 AM EDT.
