| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2006 06:17:58 AM · #1 |
I have recently purchased a Canon 350D/Rebel XT with no lenses, and now looking for my first two lenses.
I would like sharp, great colour quality images, with very little assistance from Photoshop, which is the best combination based on a limited budget?
1) Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di AND Canon 17-40 L
OR
2) Canon 24-105 L USM AND Tokina 12-24
OR
3) Canon 24-105 L USM AND Sigma 10-20
I will buy the 50mm 1.8 with which ever option I go for.
Other suggestions welcome :-)
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
04/12/2006 06:24:06 AM · #2 |
Not sure I would go for any of those combinations for starting out, but if I had to I would go with:
Canon 24-105 L USM AND Tokina 12-24
I would spend money on a telephoto rather than a wide, but if you do get the wide, I have read a lot of comparisons and the Tokina wins.
Message edited by author 2006-04-12 06:25:37. |
|
|
|
04/12/2006 07:50:46 AM · #3 |
Dollar for dollar the Tamron is a much better value than the 24-105. It's sharpness will not disappoint you. I'd reccommend getting the Tamron and the Tokina now, and then save up for something longer (perhaps Sigma 70-200) later. You have done your homework well. Whatever your choose from among the ones you've listed will give you a great start on a fine collection of quality glass.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2006 07:54:07 AM · #4 |
I've got the Canon 24-105L and love it. Nice lens. But I've also heard great things about the Tamron 28-75. So depends what you want to do with it. For me, the longer reach of the 105 was kicker. But you probably can't go wrong with either one.
Good luck!
Doug |
|
|
|
04/12/2006 08:10:10 AM · #5 |
I just got the Tamron 28-75 and can honestly tell you that it's a great lens! The fixed 2.8 rocks, and it's sharp and accurate. I don't know which is better, the Tokina or the Sigma, but I'd choose one of them to go with it, as the Canon you have listed would be redundant and likely horribly expensive.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 04:12:54 AM · #6 |
bluenova "Not sure I would go for any of those combinations for starting out..."
well i would appreciate your suggestions rather than a unconstructive comment!
Thanks to OdysseyF22, dswebb, coolhar who gave good feedback! |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 04:18:28 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by tasvir:
bluenova "Not sure I would go for any of those combinations for starting out..."
well i would appreciate your suggestions rather than a unconstructive comment!
Thanks to OdysseyF22, dswebb, coolhar who gave good feedback! |
Sorry, that was supposed to be constructive. I wouldn't go with those combinations, as I would miss not having anything telephoto, as I said.
Edit: Just to add, thanks for making me feel like a complete arse, I'll try to ingore your comments from now on, as my reply was not helpful.
Message edited by author 2006-04-13 04:23:56. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 04:23:30 AM · #8 |
17-40 f/4 L
50 f/1.8 Mk I (or 50/1.4)
70-200 f/4 L
You didn't include any lens with reach in you OP, so I didn't know if you cared about that or not... but this is what I have (about to get the 17-40, currently I have a 19-35, and i have the 50/1.4) and I think I have good covereage for about 95% of the shooting I do.
I know I didn't suggest a UWA, but I don't have any experience with them, and I'm content for the time being with 17-19mm on the wide side. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 04:31:07 AM · #9 |
Okay bluenova im sorry - i see you were trying to help.... your feedback is very very welcome!
Just getting a bit annoyed with reading so many reviews and not coming to a concrete decision...
Thanks and sorry... |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 04:31:42 AM · #10 |
I agree with tryals15. You need a 70-200 in that combo.
17-40 f/4 L
50 f/1.8 Mk I (or 50/1.4)
70-200 f/4 L
Sounds like a fantastic collection to me!
Get a 2x teleconverter if you need it. If you want superwide, I love my Sigma 10-20mm
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 06:39:58 AM · #11 |
If you shoot at all in dim light, the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 might be better. F2.8 has saved me a couple of times. Very useful indoors.
If you like hiking or telephoto street shooting, you may want to try the Canon 70-300 IS. It is slow but the IS makes a huge difference. I also have the 100-400L but, like the 70-200 F2 IS, its bulky, heavy, and hard to hide in a crowd. I just got the 70-300 a couple of weeks ago but I take it everywhere.
I would also highly recommend the Canon 100 Macro. I use it for studio shots, tripod indoor shots, portraits, and macros. It will do just about anything and its sharp.
I don't shoot much wide but I use the Tamron 17-35. It gets the job done (would have gotten the Canon 16-35L if I could have). Had a Sigma 17-35 and the distortion was too noticible.
Good luck! Once you start buying it becomes an addiction.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 07:48:32 AM · #12 |
17-40 f/4 L
50 f/1.8 Mk I (or 50/1.4)
70-200 f/4 L
Is there not an issue that there are gaps in overall focal range? It may not be possible for me to use my feet on some occasions... I also feel that I would be messing around too much with changing lenses...
Also I didnt ask about the 70mm+ lenses because I will be purchasing the 70-200 f/4 L at a later date.
I am looking more at immediate needs at the moment. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 09:31:18 AM · #13 |
what about this combination?
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF PRO DX lens
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 09:42:05 AM · #14 |
Limited budget?
the 24-105 is $1250. That is not a limit in most of our minds...
Anyway:
What are you planning to shoot?
Sigma 70-200 2.8 for $839 - great lens, and lots cheaper than the better choice of hte cnaon 70-200 2.8 IS.
Tokina 12-24 withut a doubt. $500
The midrange...this is a bit tougher. Options are the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or consider the Tamron SP 24-135 3.5-5.6 - a fantastic walkaround lens, great in the studio and does macro too. Extremely sharp and excellent color and contrast. $400 - about $850 less than the 24-105. I have used the 24-105 and there's nothing wrong with it, but it is lots of money, most for IS and 1/2 stop faster (at 105mm) than the Tamron 24-135, but for less range.
So the midrange depends on what you're shooting - weddings? kids at the park? in a studio?
Canon 100 2.8 is a good choice, and get a tamron 1.4x TC to go with the 70-200 lens.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 09:56:23 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by tasvir:
what about this combination?
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF PRO DX lens
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens |
I have three of the four and this has been/is a wonderful combination for me...
I don't have the Tokina but do have the Tamron SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 which has been about as wide as I need to go and like its brother (28-75mm) very sharp and accurrate lens.
I also have a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG x1.4 TC which takes my 70-200mm to @ 280mm not the longest reach but gets me out there a little further.
Andy
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 04:19:05 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by tasvir:
17-40 f/4 L
50 f/1.8 Mk I (or 50/1.4)
70-200 f/4 L
Is there not an issue that there are gaps in overall focal range? It may not be possible for me to use my feet on some occasions... I also feel that I would be messing around too much with changing lenses...
Also I didnt ask about the 70mm+ lenses because I will be purchasing the 70-200 f/4 L at a later date.
I am looking more at immediate needs at the moment. |
If you're concerned about gaps, and changing lenses, you can get an 18-200mm lens from Sigma and Tamaron, both are nice lenses. But the ones you are looking at (and that others have suggested) are much better.
Consider that you have more camera shake at the long end, so IS matters more there. But some of the IS lenses are f/5.6 at the long end, and IS only gives you two stops, so the f/2.8 with no IS turns out to be equally good. The question becomes do you want to stop action with a faster shutter at shallow DOF (f/2.8) or a greater DOF with more motion blur (IS)?
With the 24-105, its f/4 and three stops for the IS, so its a tougher question (you gain two stops overall). If you shoot sports, f/2.8 often isn't fast enough. Otherwise, the 24-105 is more interesting than I first thought.
Message edited by author 2006-04-13 16:23:59. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 05:15:39 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by tasvir:
I have recently purchased a Canon 350D/Rebel XT with no lenses, and now looking for my first two lenses.
I would like sharp, great colour quality images, with very little assistance from Photoshop, which is the best combination based on a limited budget?
1) Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di AND Canon 17-40 L
OR
2) Canon 24-105 L USM AND Tokina 12-24
OR
3) Canon 24-105 L USM AND Sigma 10-20
I will buy the 50mm 1.8 with which ever option I go for.
Other suggestions welcome :-)
Thanks in advance! |
1) Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di AND Canon 17-40 L
forget the other options, this option gives you the best quality and speed you can get for your budget ;)
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 06:20:32 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by tasvir:
what about this combination?
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF PRO DX lens
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens |
I don't have a DSLR yet, but I'm planning on buying the 30D within the next few months and this is almost exactly the combination I'm going to (eventually) get with it. I already own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for my film camera, so I don't need the 50mm 1.8.
To me, this combination not only seemed the most ecomonical for the greatest amount of coverage and quality in that coverage, but also I found myself considering the weight of the lenses a lot. I would love to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 L lens, with or without the IS, but I can't see myself carrying around a 2.8lb or heavier lens with the camera. It just wouldn't be fun, and I could see myself feeling reluctant to take it with me, even if I saw a need for it. (I do have to admit, though, I've never held one of those beautiful, long white lenses - I've just ogled them from afar as they sat on the top shelf at B&H. :)
As this is one of the combos your considering, I'm just curious - did weight factor in as strongly for you as it has for me?
Also, you may wish to consider adding a Canon 100mm f/2.0 to this, just so you have a little more range at a wider aperture should you find a need. I bought this lens on a whim at the same time I bought the 50mm 1.4 because I loved the way it felt. I ended up using it even more than I use the 50mm. Fantastic lens! And there's a $25 rebate on it right now (you can find it for around $390 before the discount).
Happy purchasing, whatever you may decide! :)
Liz
Edited to add: On second thought, adding the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro might be a better choice than the 100mm I suggested. Not only will you get some wider aperture, but a macro, and the shots that people around here have taken with that lens are fantastic. It's not much more than the one I suggested, either. Ironically, when I purchased my 100mm from B&H, they sent me home with the macro lens by mistake (and yes - they did charge me correctly). I went back the next day to get the lens I really wanted. Now I'm wondering if I should have tried out the macro while I had it. (B&H does let you do that.) I may have ended up sticking with it. Oh, well!
Message edited by author 2006-04-13 18:36:08. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 07:04:10 PM · #19 |
| I have the 17-40 f4 L and love the lens. Also there is a $50 rebate from Canon right now. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 07:57:49 PM · #20 |
I'd pick the Tamron 28-75 and the Tokina 12-24.
Buy a flash too and the 50mm f1.8.
|
|
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: 07/20/2025 08:39:17 AM EDT.
