lens upgrades, what do i do. - DPChallenge Forums

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/05/2012 07:58:16 AM · #1

ok so i bought myself a 100mm/2.8 macro for Christmas, and now i have buyers remorse that i should have gotten something else. i like the 100mm but i really have no use. its too long, i dont shoot portrait and i am finding i really dont like macro. so i want to get something i'd really use.

i have:

18-135 kit
100mm/2.8
50mm/1.8

so here are my options, sell all:

buy canon 15-85mm/3.5-5.6 and 50mm/1.4 an get a something longer down the line

or

keep 50mm/1.8 and get a tamron 17-50/2.8 and maybe a used canon 70-200mm/4L

i would love to get a tamron 24-75mm/2.8 but i know it wont be wide enough.

or

keep the 18-135mm, sell the 50mm and the 100mm and upgrade to 50mm/1.4 and get my love the 85mm/1.8?

Message edited by author 2012-01-05 07:58:51.

spiritualspatula

01/05/2012 08:09:23 AM · #2

If the 100 is too long.... the 85 is negligibly shorter.
100= 24 degrees field of view
85=28 degrees

Personally, I'm just sorta done and underwhelmed with slow zooms. I've accepted that they'll frustrate me and I might as well just suck it up and wait to get a fast one. Your needs and expectations are not mine, but that's how I feel.

What primes does Canon offer down around 20mm? I'd expect a 20 2.8 to be reasonable?

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/05/2012 08:13:12 AM · #3

20,24,28...

i love primes, they just aren't feasible for walk around. which is why im looking at option 1, i'd be upgrading my 50mm which i use the most and getting a solid walk around.

but then there is option 3, where is do the same, i love the 85mm. but then im keeping the lens i dislike the most.

Message edited by author 2012-01-05 08:15:55.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/05/2012 08:16:53 AM · #4

Yeah, I just looked- what would you think of a 20 2.8 for $480 and then an 85 1.8?
You seem to like primes, that's why I suggest that. What about a 17-40 F4L and then save for a bit and get an 85 on top?

ETA: Thoughts on the angle of view of the 85 being so close to the 100? You said the 100 is just too long?

Message edited by author 2012-01-05 08:17:50.

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

01/05/2012 08:17:52 AM · #5

17-50 Tamron and 70-200.

Why would you buy an 85mm. if you are not interested in portraits? You're not satisfied with your 100 and you wanna buy an 85! :)

marbo

Nikon D5000

01/05/2012 08:17:53 AM · #6

You have to much long, you want wide.
Sigma 10-20

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

01/05/2012 08:19:51 AM · #7

Get a tilt-shift lens for architectural macro portraits.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

01/05/2012 08:21:38 AM · #8

How about a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

01/05/2012 08:25:21 AM · #9

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

ETA: Thoughts on the angle of view of the 85 being so close to the 100? You said the 100 is just too long?

i realize the 85mm is long too, but i just love that lens.

i really want to be done with the 18-135, and have no use for the 100mm. but i need to replace the 18-135 some how. for some reason i feel like i need to be so close. maybe its the softness of the lenses i have used in the past and when i crop them tighter they are extremely soft.

if i get a tamron 24-75, i'd like a wider lens to use on occasion, maybe that's where i look.

01/05/2012 08:26:24 AM · #10

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

How about a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

considering the tamron is half the price, is there a difference?

01/05/2012 08:29:52 AM · #11

ok, so option 4 (lol)

is a tamron 24-75 and some wide angle to use for landscape.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

01/05/2012 08:31:15 AM · #12

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
How about a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

considering the tamron is half the price, is there a difference?

5mm of extra reach can make all the difference. ;-)

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/05/2012 08:31:29 AM · #13

We have a 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron available, make us an offer and steal it from us :-)

R.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/05/2012 08:35:46 AM · #14

Originally posted by mike_311:

ok, so option 4 (lol)

is a tamron 24-75 and some wide angle to use for landscape.

Keep in mind it's a 28-75. Also keep in mind that a 24 is negligibly wider than a 28. I know this, I have one. I use my 24 as a lightweight backpack lens for that reason. That's why the 20 might not be too bad an option. But, depending upon your landscapes, 20 might be either great or a little bit too tele. For mountains, it's a bit tele for me at times, but it's a good compromise.

The Tamron 28-75 is super sharp and has great contrast. It's lightweight and has a close minimum focus distance too.

01/05/2012 08:36:40 AM · #15

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

We have a 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron available, make us an offer and steal it from us :-)

R.

i know. i know.

01/05/2012 08:39:35 AM · #16

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by mike_311:
ok, so option 4 (lol)

is a tamron 24-75 and some wide angle to use for landscape.

Keep in mind it's a 28-75. Also keep in mind that a 24 is negligibly wider than a 28. I know this, I have one. I use my 24 as a lightweight backpack lens for that reason. That's why the 20 might not be too bad an option. But, depending upon your landscapes, 20 might be either great or a little bit too tele. For mountains, it's a bit tele for me at times, but it's a good compromise.

The Tamron 28-75 is super sharp and has great contrast. It's lightweight and has a close minimum focus distance too.

yeah, with is why i wasn't sure i wanted the tamron, but if i sell the 100mm i can pick up a wider lens.

Covert_Oddity

Nikon D700

01/05/2012 09:03:22 AM · #17

Solve the problem by buying a full frame camera, that way the lens won't be as long and you'll have an additional new toy to play with as a bonus :)

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/05/2012 09:16:56 AM · #18

Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:

Solve the problem by buying a full frame camera, that way the lens won't be as long and you'll have an additional new toy to play with as a bonus :)

yes i thought about that. this is my second camera in 2 years.

My wife would kill me. she has no idea im selling my new lens yet :)

snaffles

Nikon D7100

01/05/2012 09:22:41 AM · #19

Is there not the Canon equivalent of Nikon's 18-200mm 3.5-5.6? If not, then maybe it's time to switch brands ;-)

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

01/05/2012 09:39:56 AM · #20

aw give the macro a fair shake, s'not enough time to know.

fwiw i love the 200mm 2.8L for wildlife and anything that's a reach, gorgeous color, sharpness and bokeh, and adore the canon 10-22mm, fun for city, hip-snaps, perspective.

often jaunt with those 2 and the 50mm 1.8 and feel pretty covered.

gwsallen

Nikon D300

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

01/05/2012 10:05:33 AM · #21

imho, either

Tamron 17-50mm
//www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EXR0SI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=dpchallenge-forum-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000EXR0SI

or

Sigma 17-50mm
//www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003A6H27K/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=dpchallenge-forum-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B003A6H27K

Sigma would have less hunting problem in low-lit room. Good luck!

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

01/05/2012 10:12:06 AM · #22

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by mike_311:
ok, so option 4 (lol)

is a tamron 24-75 and some wide angle to use for landscape.

Keep in mind it's a 28-75. Also keep in mind that a 24 is negligibly wider than a 28. I know this, I have one. I use my 24 as a lightweight backpack lens for that reason. That's why the 20 might not be too bad an option. But, depending upon your landscapes, 20 might be either great or a little bit too tele. For mountains, it's a bit tele for me at times, but it's a good compromise.

The Tamron 28-75 is super sharp and has great contrast. It's lightweight and has a close minimum focus distance too.

yeah, with is why i wasn't sure i wanted the tamron, but if i sell the 100mm i can pick up a wider lens.

I was VERY happy with the 10-22 and tammy 28-75 combo for @6 years on my 20D and just as happy this year after upgrading to the 7D. The 28mm limit on that tammy never bothered me but go figure I found it a little short on the long end. The tammy is a great lens and that is an outstanding price is your stealing it from bear (even without the mojo it might still have :-) ).

I used that right up to a couple of weeks ago when I managed to snag a 24-105L with a very understand better half given what I have already spend this year :-/ and would still be using it otherwise. I would go for it and get out and take some pictures already :-)

leaf

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/05/2012 03:04:35 PM · #23

I've heard lots of good things about the 24-105 lens. A great walk around length. I know some very succesful photographers who chose that over the 2.8 series zooms. Albeit it is a costly lens.. sell everything and get that lens???

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/05/2012 05:39:31 PM · #24

The *standard* for mid-range zooms on FF is the 24-70. On APS-C, this is not really wide enough at all. The 17-55 is pretty much a direct replacement for the 24-70 range ( it equates to 27-88mm).
As to why the Canon 17-55 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50:
- The Canon has IS. That's the big one. Now, how much you need IS in this focal length range is a matter of debate ;-)
- The Canon is a sharper lens, particularly in the corners. The Canon is reportedly a little softer at close focus distances
- The Canon has USM focus with full-time manual override. The Tamron does not.
- The build is somewhat better on the Canon (though not radically better)

If you are considering these two, I'd take the opportunity to shoot them both. If you are critical about your image sharpness, you will see a difference between them.

Edit for typo

Message edited by author 2012-01-05 17:40:17.