| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2006 11:31:01 AM · #26 |
The 50mm 1.8 produces very sharp photos. You will be very please. Esp. for the price.
FWIW, almost any SLR lens will produce better images than the P&S lens you are accustomed to. But, really the quality of the lens you will need depends a lot on the size you want to display your images.
Almost any lens will do for web and 4x6 prints.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2006 01:08:00 PM · #27 |
I started with a cheap 28-80 and the sigma 70-300 APO 4-5.6. The cheap lens ($50) was low on contrast and not sharp at most any F stop. I saw a huge difference when i got my sigma 18-50 2.8 EX.
But I was missing shots swapping lenses - the 50 was too short for most outdoor work beyond landscapes, and the 70-300 was too slow for indoor work. After a great deal of research I chose the tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 SP lens - super super sharp, great range. 24 works outdoors 98% of the time and the 135 (= to 200mm on a 1.6 crop camera) works well too as a walk around. This is also a fantastic studio lens, and for night shots and low light (focusing) it rocks. If you want a sharp walk around lens it can't be beat. SP is the tamron 'L' equivalent and this is a well built lens. It survived a 3' drop to blacktop without even a scratch!
For wider look at the tokina 12-24 F4 for under $500. Again, very sharp and well built.
Once you try a 70-200 2.8 you'll fall in love with one. Such a tremendous step up from a 70-300 class lens words don't work to describe it. I'm interested in how the new sigma 50-150 2.8 lens will be (tokina is supposed to have one this fall as well). it's the 'proper' focal length for a 1.6 crop camera (try a 70-200 2.8 on a 5D and you'll understand the true potenetial of this lens - so the 50-150 should rock on a 1.6 crop body).
Also remember that most lenses are a tad soft at the extreme (focal length or fstop) compared the middle range. and you should be shooting wiht a shutter speed of 1/focal length at least, perhaps 1/focal length * 1.6 to avoid camera shake |
|
|
|
08/17/2006 01:30:42 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
Originally posted by Diablito:
im thinking when i get the money, my lineup would be somewhere around 3 lenses.. 10-22 EF-S / 17-40 L and the 70-200 /4 L..
|
In that setup, the 17-40 would be a bit redundant on the wide end, and leaves quite a gap on the long end. Change the 17-40L to a 24-70 2.8L and you're covered all-around. It's a bit more than the 17-40, but one helluva lens. |
Or do like I did and over-lap the gaps. 17-40 F/4L,50mm F1.8(cheap but effective),25-105 F/4L IS(expensive but gotta love that IS)70-200 F2.8L,1.4x extender(if ya wanna go farther) and a 100mm F2.8 macro for good measure.
You'll be sorry if ya don't get something to cover the gap in between 40 and 70mm. I did what your talking about and thought I could get away with the 50mm but that didn't work for long. I wound up buying the 24-105.
Message edited by author 2006-08-17 13:33:06.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2006 08:20:51 PM · #29 |
ive been reading around all day.. lense choice..
what would be the "best" bang for the buck lense of these 2.8 lenses:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (expensive of course, but worth the 3 times more money involved?)
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO (cheaper than the tamron, and 4mm more in the short end.. just as good ?)
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di (this tempts the most)
any other 2.8 zoom / walkaround lense i should look at maybe ?
thanks again yall ;) |
|
|
|
08/17/2006 08:24:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Diablito:
what would be the "best" bang for the buck lense of these 2.8 lenses:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (expensive of course, but worth the 3 times more money involved?)
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO (cheaper than the tamron, and 4mm more in the short end.. just as good ?)
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di (this tempts the most)
|
We have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I have a friend who has the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and I wish I'd gotten the Tamron. The Sigma is louder when it hunts and it seems to hunt for focus more than the Tamron on both the 20D & 30D bodies. If you have the money in the account the Canon can't be beat but if you're looking to save some I'd go with the Tamron.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
08/17/2006 09:33:23 PM · #31 |
| Yeah. I see the Tamron gets both great reviews and user reviews. im pretty sure the 28-75 2.8 tamron is gonna be my next lense : |
|
|
|
08/17/2006 09:33:23 PM · #32 |
ups double :/
Message edited by author 2006-08-17 21:33:38. |
|
|
|
08/17/2006 09:46:37 PM · #33 |
| I don't regret buying the Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 one bit. |
|
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: 09/16/2025 07:47:47 AM EDT.
