Ug, I am so indecisive about lenses!!

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/28/2008 09:13:58 PM · #1

It's new lens time again, and again I can't make a decision! Maybe you can help?

I want a super versatile telephoto. One that I can take with me to Italy and not have to switch lenses constantly (another product of my indecision!!). One that I can take on a trip through the mountains and photograph wildlife at both close and far distances. I want as much sharpness and quick auto-focus as possible. USM would be awesome, but not totally necessary. AND the big lenses are too big for me! A 2.8 70-200 is WAY too heavy for me to use on a regular basis. Let's pretend money isn't a big issue.

So if somebody could invent a Canon 2.8L 28-300 USM DO IS for me, and not charge me $10k, that'd be great. :)

Any suggestions while I wait for that to be invented? I'd like to get my lenses down to 3 main ones. My 10-20 sigma, my 50 1.8 canon, and whatever this new one will be.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

04/28/2008 09:19:05 PM · #2

Originally posted by DianeS:

A 2.8 70-200 is WAY too heavy for me to use on a regular basis. Let's pretend money isn't a big issue.

So if somebody could invent a Canon 2.8L 28-300 USM DO IS for me, and not charge me $10k, that'd be great. :)

If the 70-200 2.8 is a bit heavy I would want to pick up a 28-300 2.8. Look how big a 200-500 2.8 would be: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=K77UvaiHii0

If you don't want to change lenses you can always pick up an extra body.

Message edited by author 2008-04-28 21:20:57.

lovethelight

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

04/28/2008 09:19:11 PM · #3

What about a 24-70mm 2.8L?

04/28/2008 09:25:55 PM · #4

Originally posted by faidoi:

Look how big a 200-500 2.8 would be: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=K77UvaiHii0

NO WAY! I thought that was a joke at first! I can't even imagine the price or weight of that!

I have been looking at the Tamron 28-300 with DO, but I keep reading reviews that says it's not very sharp. I'm no pro, but I'd like to be one day, so I thought I'd see if there was something else worth splurging on. I guess I should consider the canon. **maybe not, just saw the price, hah.

I think the 24-70 2.8 is a bit too short for me... But I might end up doing that anyway.

Message edited by author 2008-04-28 21:34:40.

Retroesque

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/28/2008 09:29:06 PM · #5

Ok - I've got one for you ... Canon 100mm 2.8 - it ROCKS!

Ok - so at first you think 'Macro' - I don't want just a Macro - and then you SEE it's BRILLIANT for portraits too! Yeah Baby!

I got mine last year on a whim - and I ADORE IT!

This was taken through glass...

Then it can do BEAUTIFUL details like this...

And it's a GREAT walkabout lens for street photography

Still not convinced? SMILE!

Then almost ALL of these were taken with it...

Autumn - Dead or Alive

But don't forget ... it's not just for Macro!

I'll leave you to get on with your decision now - GRIN!

04/28/2008 09:32:13 PM · #6

Those photos do make it tempting!!!

Retroesque

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/28/2008 09:38:09 PM · #7

Originally posted by DianeS:

Those photos do make it tempting!!!

Honestly Diana - I am STUNNED by how much I love and USE that lens.

It is SO sharp, the 2.8 makes it have awesome DOF and it's fast.

Additionally all the bits that focus are on the inside of the lens so it's solid and doesn't move.

Oh YEAH!

I've also now considering the 85mm 1.8 for portraits, but not sure I need it - GRIN!

ryand

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/28/2008 09:45:51 PM · #8

I love my 100mm 2.8 macro as well, its incredible.

Something else you could look into would be the 70-200mm F4, its a lot cheaper and a lot lighter. Might be something worth checking out, I'm currently deliberating between it and the 2.8

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/28/2008 10:13:43 PM · #9

Or the Tamron AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Di XR ASL IF Zoom, perhaps. I can't decide if 5.6 is wide enough though...

paddles

Pentax K10D

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

04/29/2008 06:40:00 AM · #10

The thing about the "superzooms" (18-200, 18-250, 28-200, not just the Tamron 28-300 you mentioned) is that all of them compromise on image quality to get the large focal length range. Your images will turn out soft (unsharp), particularly at the wide and long ends of the lens's range.

Several years back I had a 28-200 which at first I loved for the convenience, but over time I was unhappy with the image quality so I used it less and less. After it sat unused for over a year I decided to sell it, and haven't missed it. On a recent overseas holiday I took four lenses (50/1.4, 90/2.8, 10-20 and 24-135, was going to take a 80-200 too but accidentally left it behind) - not terribly convenient for size or weight, but it meant I got photos I was happy with from places I'm not likely to see again for a long time.

I'm not saying that superzooms are evil and you should never use them - if being able to travel light is important, or changing lenses could mean missing out on the shot, then a superzoom might be the best choice - soft photos can be better than missing out entirely. You will need to decide between convenience and sharpness - which is most important to you?

pix-al

Canon EOS-5D

04/29/2008 06:51:17 AM · #11

I have the Tamron 28-300 (early non stabalised) and have to say, it is not that bad...
As a travelling "all in one" lens, I would recommend it, especially as the new price has dropped considerably which in turn has impacted the Used market. I see them go on Ebay (UK) now for less than Â£100 ($200).

Message edited by author 2008-04-29 06:56:34.

dainmcgowan

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT