| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2006 07:55:42 AM · #1 |
hi all, i need some ideas or advices ...
i have these lenese for my 350 D
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Sigma 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Canon
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
the covered range is not big, 18-70 (28-112 equiv.) and one FFL lens which is perfect considering the price and outstanding quality photos it produces,
from range POV i see i would probably need some telephoto lens to cover the whole range, for example 70-300 IS USM would be great ... BUT ... whats bothering me lately is that Sigma and 350DKit lens are making lousy photos in quality so i'm definetly NOT happy with them *i know they are cheapos but you have to start somewhere, right* :>
what to do? sell 18-55 and 24-70 , save money and buy 24-105 f4 L IS USM ? ohhh YEA.
or keep the lenses and buy telephoto as mentioned above, hmm ... well in 76% of cases i do not need telephoto lens, the range i have now is okay for me,
did i confuse you ? :>
thanks for any answer
peace,
goran
|
|
|
|
04/07/2006 07:58:42 AM · #2 |
I think if you do not feel you have much of a need for a telephoto lens, then by all means go for the 24-70L.
I cannot believe the world of difference using L lenses has made with my photography. They just produce much sharper images. I am in love with mine!
edited: Sorry, you said the 24-105L, not the 24-70L
Message edited by author 2006-04-07 08:02:39.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2006 07:59:12 AM · #3 |
You need a 17-40 and a 70-200 (either f/2.8 or f/4 either way) and you'll be good to go.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2006 08:09:25 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by deapee:
You need a 17-40 and a 70-200 (either f/2.8 or f/4 either way) and you'll be good to go. |
hmm, okay thanks but whats with 40-70 gap ?
covered with 50mm 1.8 ?
|
|
|
|
04/07/2006 08:12:18 AM · #5 |
I sold my 18-55 a while back and while I don't regret doing it, I will say I wish I had something on the wide end. My widest lens now is a 28 and it's not wide enough. You won't get much money for that lens, make sure you really want to part with it.
But, like you, I'm also wanting a long lens but just can't talk myself into going cheap ... so I end up with nothing :( |
|
|
|
04/07/2006 08:19:35 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
You need a 17-40 and a 70-200 (either f/2.8 or f/4 either way) and you'll be good to go. |
I covered the gap with the 24-70. The other thing to consider, if you plan to stay with the 350, is Canon's 10-22, 24-105L, 100-400L. All superior lenses, and covers a huge range.
Might need that second mortgage though... ;)
|
|
|
|
04/07/2006 08:21:32 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by gooc:
Originally posted by deapee:
You need a 17-40 and a 70-200 (either f/2.8 or f/4 either way) and you'll be good to go. |
hmm, okay thanks but whats with 40-70 gap ?
covered with 50mm 1.8 ? |
It's not about there being a gap between 40mm and 70mm. That distance is probably easily walkable over a 5 foot space infront of your camera. It's about having something wide, versatile, and high quality (the 17-40) (the 24-70 isn't wide enough for a dslr), and also about having something that's versatile, quality, and telephoto (the 70-200) -- believe me, if you had those two lenses, you could pretty much shoot whatever you wanted.
Anything else is just an add-on. The 50 1.8 has its place. An 85 1.8 has its place. An ultra-wide has it's place. A super telephoto has its place, but with those two main lenses, you cannot go wrong. I guarantee you you will not miss having something between 40 and 70.
|
|
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: 09/24/2025 11:43:39 AM EDT.
