| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2006 04:13:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Heck, I wish I had that as a "starter kit" :D Go for it man, if you can afford it! |
Can't afford it, but if I wasn't buying something I couldn't afford, would it be a passion? ;)
I think I'm going to pick up the 75-300 and just get the rebate. If it is useless, then I'll sell it on eBay and still make a little bit. |
|
|
|
01/04/2006 04:22:47 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by AdamThomas:
should I add the Canon EF 75-300MM F4-5.6 III for 179? That would double my rebate on the xt and give me an xtra lense (The Canon 75-300) for less than $100. That would bring me to a grand total of 1380, but with rebates, would come back down to about 1200 total which includes:
The Rebel XT
Canon 50mm 1.8
Tamron 28-75
Canon EF 75-300MM F4-5.6 III
shipping
how's that sound for a starter kit? Not a lot of wide angle, but that's what birthday's are for. |
hi, everything is okay but i'll kick out the tele lens and go with with one superwide sigma 10-20 ... you'll see the 75-300 is maybe too long for shooting handheld unless you have a tripod ready for outdoors :-)
... and Tamron is a good lens but his 28mm is in fact 45mm which is considered definetly not an wide angle ...
acutally you know what i would do ? i would buy only 50 1.8 and shoot with it for a few months and the decide what to buy next ... YES ... this is the right idea :-)
peace
|
|
|
|
01/04/2006 04:49:07 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by gooc:
Originally posted by AdamThomas:
should I add the Canon EF 75-300MM F4-5.6 III for 179? That would double my rebate on the xt and give me an xtra lense (The Canon 75-300) for less than $100. That would bring me to a grand total of 1380, but with rebates, would come back down to about 1200 total which includes:
The Rebel XT
Canon 50mm 1.8
Tamron 28-75
Canon EF 75-300MM F4-5.6 III
shipping
how's that sound for a starter kit? Not a lot of wide angle, but that's what birthday's are for. |
hi, everything is okay but i'll kick out the tele lens and go with with one superwide sigma 10-20 ... you'll see the 75-300 is maybe too long for shooting handheld unless you have a tripod ready for outdoors :-)
... and Tamron is a good lens but his 28mm is in fact 45mm which is considered definetly not an wide angle ...
acutally you know what i would do ? i would buy only 50 1.8 and shoot with it for a few months and the decide what to buy next ... YES ... this is the right idea :-)
peace |
you had to, didn't you?
The 10-20 is 500. A lot more than the 90 dollars the Canon would end up being (because of the rebate). |
|
|
|
01/04/2006 06:11:34 PM · #29 |
| Fred Miranda and Prof_Fate have me second guessing the Tamron 28-75 for the 24-135. Will the 3.5 make that big of a difference? Illuminate me! the 24-135 would kind of take care of wind angle for me - otherwise I'd have to wait a long while to get a wide angle. hmmm. |
|
|
|
01/04/2006 06:27:19 PM · #30 |
| The 28-75 is a better lens for its range, and 4mm isn't THAT much wider. If you need wide angle on a budget, I'd pick up the kit lens on eBay. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:38:49 PM · #31 |
1.) Would the 28-75 be redundant if I am already getting the 50mm f1.8?
2.) If I can add the possibility of Macro and semi-wide angle for 50 more dollars, shouldn't I do that?
3.) Does the constant 2.8 v the 3.5-5.6 make that big of a difference if I was shooting on a tripod in low light?
4.) Wouldn't the added 4 on the low end and 50mm on the high end give me more flexibility for a walkaround?
ARG!
Message edited by author 2006-01-05 13:45:15. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:42:23 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by AdamThomas:
Would the 28-75 be redundant if I am already getting the 50mm f1.8? If I can add the possibility of Macro and semi-wide angle for 50 more dollars, shouldn't I do that? Does the constant 2.8 v the 3.5-5.6 make that big of a difference if I was shooting on a tripod in low light?
ARG! |
Yes, it makes a HUGE difference in composing and focusing, even if you end up shooting stopped down. One of the great advantages of f/2.8 and brighter is the clarity and ease of viewing in the compositional and focusing stages.
R. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:46:25 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by AdamThomas:
Would the 28-75 be redundant if I am already getting the 50mm f1.8? If I can add the possibility of Macro and semi-wide angle for 50 more dollars, shouldn't I do that? Does the constant 2.8 v the 3.5-5.6 make that big of a difference if I was shooting on a tripod in low light?
ARG! |
Yes, it makes a HUGE difference in composing and focusing, even if you end up shooting stopped down. One of the great advantages of f/2.8 and brighter is the clarity and ease of viewing in the compositional and focusing stages.
R. |
Is "HUGE" enough to warrant that purchase over a lense that can do semi-macro/semi-wide with a greater range? |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:50:57 PM · #34 |
It is that HUGE a difference, in my opinion. I have 3.5-5.6 lenses, and they drive me insane any time I am in a low light situation. I have used 2.8 lenses, and they are much, much better. So if you're only going to shoot in bright light, you may not mind a lense with lesser F-stops. But if there's going to be any low light involved, the Tamron is the choice. It is also a good, sharp lens.
My $.02 for ya'
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:51:03 PM · #35 |
1.) No, I use both lenses all the time.
2.) You can do that anyway. Get an extension tube or reverse the 50mm lens.
3.) Yes. If nothing else, it will allow a faster shutter speed and more flexibility with DOF.
4.) Sure, but at the expense of image quality and sharpness. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:53:22 PM · #36 |
The 28-75 is a very competent near-macro performer; it goes down to 1:2 (where "real" macro is 1:1 or better). So the question is basically "is it worth the extra reach?" TRhe additional 4mm of wide don't really factor in. I can only speak for myself, but shooting in dim environments with flash (i.e. wedding photography) I'd take the f/2.8 over the reach every time. I can't overempahsize how important this is for quick and accurate compositing and focusing of images. You don't have a lot of time to futz around in that line of work, you have to seize the moment.
R. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:56:37 PM · #37 |
so the 24-135 wouldn't necessarily take better macro shots?
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 02:07:16 PM · #38 |
there is good difference between 24 and 28. I had a 28-80 and was unsure myself - but it is significant at times.
low light on a tripod - it does not matter.
The 24-135
Where i notice the difference is:
today, a cloudy miserable day, drizzly. I was out and took some duck shots. I used the tamron and my 70-210 2.8. The tamron 24-135 was at 5.6 at 135mm. The 70-210 at 3.5 or 2.8 - ISO 200 at 1/250 vs ISO 400 at 1/125 or 800 at 1/250. 2 stops. (2.8 - 4 -5.6).
Indoors like at a museum. I went to the henry ford this past summer and did not take a monopod or tripod. did have flash, but the place it too huge to bounce and direct flash was terrible (shiny cars, glass cases, etc). I used my sigma 18-50 2.8. You can handhold at 18-24mm at 1/25 or 1/30sec no problem, give that ISO 400 and at f2.8 it can get pretty dim and still get nice pics. Of course the tamron 24-135 at 24mm is at f3.5 so no real difference (1/2 a stop). IF you want to zoom in AND get a print of it (for web display there is no issue) then the diff between 5.6 and 2.8 indoors will matter.
 wide angle matters here
 ISO 800 1/30 at f2.8
 ISO 400 1/50 at f3.5
Where i hear most people push 2.8 lenses is for low light. handheld, as with a tripod it matters not. Also, you have to be zoomed a bit for it to matter. What i have found is it is not so much that aspect, as it is almost all 2.8 lenses are high quality thru and thru, where as many of the 3.5-5.6 lenses are low quality in some or many aspects.
The solid 2.8 has two hidden benefits - on the 20D and 5D/1D cameras a 2.8 or wider lens enables those cameras to focus more accurately as other sensors kick in. On telephoto lenses you can add telextenders and still have autofocus. When zooming at max aperure a 2.8 stays that way - a 2.5 to 5.6 will move to 5.6 and the shutter speed will drop, just when you need it to go up to offset camera shake the most.
Both of these lenses are very sharp, high quality items. If you have but one lens (for now) then the more it can do (focal length and macro, etc) the better.
Here is another shot, outdoors, no flash, on cluody day (a bit of sun at times) with the Tamron 24-135:
 for those that claim you need f2.8 to blur a background, nah! 100mm, 1/100 at f5.6 ISO100. It's more a function of camera to subject distance.
And here is one with the 50 1.8
 iso 400, 1/400 at f2.2
Here are some more of the 24-135 - there are 3 or 4 shots with the Canon 100 2.8 macro - cna you tell which ones? No - well, besides the two obvious macro shots ;)
The big camo lens is a canon 500 f4.5 ($4200+ FYI) I went with my friend emmanuel (his big lens) and his shots are here - some with my 24-135 (i was using his 100) on a 1.3 crop 1D Mk2n (again, don't ask the price). His processing is different than mine. The 24-135 was used on the pics with no lens listed.
edited to add emmanuels link here
Message edited by author 2006-01-05 14:08:42.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 03:05:05 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by AdamThomas:
so the 24-135 wouldn't necessarily take better macro shots? |
It definitely will NOT take "better" macro shots. It will allow you to get the same framing from a little further away, though. I haven't used that lens so can't speak first-hand, but I have a Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro (a true macro lens, very sharp and crisp) and rarely use it now that I have the Tamron. Only if I need more than 1:2 do I go to the 60mm. That's how nice the Tammy is.
R. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 04:01:55 PM · #40 |
Neither are true macro. Both are very close on specs - close focus, magnification, weight, size, even price (after rebate the 24-135 is $35 more)
BTW, I got my rebate in my hands in under 10 days. Fastest rebate i have ever received.
SO the question is:
More range (24-135) vs larger aperture (2.8). There is a Tamron 28-105 2.8 out there, not sur if they make it for canon, and the reviews on it, well, are not very good, and it costs $800 or something like that.
Both are 100% crops. The canon one has been processed, the tamron one has not.
true 1:1 macro (canon 100mm 2.8)
Tamron 24-135 'macro'
Message edited by author 2006-01-05 16:05:01.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:37:07 AM · #41 |
Ok, after a long, indecisive period, I ordered this gear:
Canon Digital Rebel XT
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Canon EFS 75-300 f/3.5-5.6 III
Canon 50mm f/1.8
With rebates and the excellent prices from BeachCamera, this setup will cost about $1200.
Thank you so much for your help, and I look forward to posting results. |
|
|
|
01/06/2006 11:45:14 AM · #42 |
| Looks like you made fine decisions. Have fun with your new toys. :) |
|
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: 08/03/2025 06:13:45 PM EDT.
