| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2004 02:02:29 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by moodville:
AND a 400mm prime but only after winning the lottery. |
That is definitely the next lens on my list, the 400mm F/5.6L from Canon. This is an extraordinarily sharp lens, with the downside of being slower than it's big dollar counterparts which are F/4.0, and lacking IS - but even with those drawbacks it is a killer wildlife lens for barely over a grand - you don't have to win the lottery to get this one in your bag!
Rich. |
I agree 150%. I've used this lens twice at the zoo and it's awesome. The first time I went I used it handheld the whole day... pictures still came out great. It's high on my wish list for sure!
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 04:32:07 PM · #27 |
one other question, if I picked up the kit lens with the camera, would that be an OK replacement instead of the tamron Tamron 28-75mm? I've seen some great reviews of the kit lens as well.
With the tamron 70-300mm lens I would be missing from 55mm to 70mm. Should I definately have somthing in that range? |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 05:21:24 PM · #28 |
I'm reading all this lens stuff and feeling alittle out of my league, but getting better.
I just purchased a 10D... I will be taking lots of shots lower light (think woods) of action similar to the below image.
I need a wide angle fast lens that doesn't have to zoom far, but I can't be stuck with something like the 50mm...
Can someone pease help. I can't spend tons of money on this lens either, so I don't expect great, but I'm shooting for decent quality...
thanks!
edit: changed image to thumb!
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 17:22:09.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 05:32:26 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
I'm reading all this lens stuff and feeling alittle out of my league, but getting better.
I just purchased a 10D... I will be taking lots of shots lower light (think woods) of action similar to the below image.
I need a wide angle fast lens that doesn't have to zoom far, but I can't be stuck with something like the 50mm...
Can someone pease help. I can't spend tons of money on this lens either, so I don't expect great, but I'm shooting for decent quality...
thanks!
edit: changed image to thumb! |
You will not go wrong with Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR AF
Fast precise and small,great for travel and portraits!
Or this one : Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 17:37:19. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 06:41:38 PM · #30 |
Alright, my new thinking is that I will replace the tamron 70-300mm with the canon 70-200mm f4L. I can pick on up for ~$550, and it looks like that would be an extra $400 well spent.
I really wish I could get a 100-400mm L, but I just don't think that's in my budget :( |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 07:23:28 PM · #31 |
Thank you, I've been looking at the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR AF, I think that might be one on my buy list this month!
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 07:39:59 PM · #32 |
Get the kit lens, it is a great value for $100 and you will need the 15-28 range. While it is pretty soft wide open, at f8 or up it is pretty sharp. The Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di at $ 320 new is very nice, But you will want something wider, the 28mm with the 1.6 crop is a 44mm lens, and just not wide enough for inside work.
I own the 70-300 IS and the Tamron 1.4 TC does work with it. At low light it tends to hunt even more than usual, but it will work. My Bigma is in the mail so this should tell you that what I have now is not an ideal but a stopgap measure.
I do not find many times that I need the range between 55mm on the kit and 70mm, when you adjust for the crop it isn't all that needed a range
The 70-200 L is a lovely lens but, but when I get one it will be the 2.8. The move to IS in that lense has dropped the non IS price to around $900. Heavier and almost twice the price of the f4, but all who have one say it's worth it.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 07:51:07 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Thank you, I've been looking at the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR AF, I think that might be one on my buy list this month! |
Photos with Tamron lens here here |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 08:19:36 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
I have the Tamron 70-300 LD (Macro). I have gotten excellent results with it at all focal lengths, particularly up at 300. It's an excellent lens for the money. Yes, the autofocus does seem slow when you compare it with USM lenses, but sufficiently fast for everyday usage. |
But not for birds,maybe for some large ones like ducks... |
And only if your Ducky!! |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 08:27:42 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by moodville:
AND a 400mm prime but only after winning the lottery. |
That is definitely the next lens on my list, the 400mm F/5.6L from Canon. This is an extraordinarily sharp lens, with the downside of being slower than it's big dollar counterparts which are F/4.0, and lacking IS - but even with those drawbacks it is a killer wildlife lens for barely over a grand - you don't have to win the lottery to get this one in your bag!Rich. |
Or as Kosta and I are doing, Get the 200mm f2.8 and the x2 telecon
Covers lots of ground at resonable price! |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 08:29:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by moodville:
AND a 400mm prime but only after winning the lottery. |
That is definitely the next lens on my list, the 400mm F/5.6L from Canon. This is an extraordinarily sharp lens, with the downside of being slower than it's big dollar counterparts which are F/4.0, and lacking IS - but even with those drawbacks it is a killer wildlife lens for barely over a grand - you don't have to win the lottery to get this one in your bag!Rich. |
Or as Kosta and I are doing, Get the 200mm f2.8 and the x2 telecon
Covers lots of ground at resonable price! |
It cost me 830 $,I will post some photos later! |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 08:34:07 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by Dim7:
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by moodville:
AND a 400mm prime but only after winning the lottery. |
That is definitely the next lens on my list, the 400mm F/5.6L from Canon. This is an extraordinarily sharp lens, with the downside of being slower than it's big dollar counterparts which are F/4.0, and lacking IS - but even with those drawbacks it is a killer wildlife lens for barely over a grand - you don't have to win the lottery to get this one in your bag!Rich. |
Or as Kosta and I are doing, Get the 200mm f2.8 and the x2 telecon
Covers lots of ground at resonable price! |
It cost me 830 $,I will post some photos later! |
Thanks in advance,Kosta
I still don`t have mine! Soon I hope :-( |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 08:46:01 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The 70-200 L is a lovely lens but, but when I get one it will be the 2.8. The move to IS in that lense has dropped the non IS price to around $900. Heavier and almost twice the price of the f4, but all who have one say it's worth it. |
I am not questioning the quality of the lens at all. However, I decided on the f4 instead of the f2.8 because I don't think the extra stop is worth the money, when in digital you can just increase the ISO to compensate. If someone is shooting a lot of lowlight pictures, then it may be worth the extra stop. However, I don't find myself shooting enought to justify the extra cost, and I also like that it's lighter and smaller. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 09:58:46 PM · #39 |
alright, I think I've made a decision...
1: Canon 70-200mm F4L lens with 2x kenko TC adaptor. I feel this should give me a great lens for the 70-200mm, and in the instances where I might need up to 400mm, a nice lens that in good light could even be handheld, without much quality loss from what I've seen.
2: Tamron 28-75mm. The samples I have seen from this have looked incredible, so I think I should be very happy with this lens.
3: Kit lens for the d300. I never used wide angle much on my e20, so I don't think this will get used all that often, but I think it would work fairly well alongside the other lenses. If I find I'm not getting use out of it, I'll just dump it on ebay.
I think that's about what is in my budget for now. After these, my next lens (probably when I can find a decent deal on ebay) will definately be a prime macro lens, likely the tamron 90mm.
I'm fairly decided about these lenses after the hours of research I have done over the past two days, but any opinions would certainly be apprecated. I appreciate all the help that has been given to me concerning this. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:29:04 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by moodville:
AND a 400mm prime but only after winning the lottery. |
That is definitely the next lens on my list, the 400mm F/5.6L from Canon. This is an extraordinarily sharp lens, with the downside of being slower than it's big dollar counterparts which are F/4.0, and lacking IS - but even with those drawbacks it is a killer wildlife lens for barely over a grand - you don't have to win the lottery to get this one in your bag!Rich. |
Or as Kosta and I are doing, Get the 200mm f2.8 and the x2 telecon
Covers lots of ground at resonable price! |
Oh man...I have been down the research road in the pursuit of a decent wildlife lens. Believe me, I considered the 200mm F2.8L + 2x combo. I also considered the 300mm F/4L + 1.4x converter (420mm) as well as the 100-400 F4.0-5.6 IS.
Bottom line for me is still getting the sharpest prime 400mm within a budget. That remains the 400mm F/5.6L. Plus I can put a 1.4x on that and get it out to 560mm @f8, although I don't know how practical that would be. Luckily I have a friend with a 1.4x converter that I can borrow so I can try-before-I-buy. I'll see how that goes...
If I did not already have something good in the 200mm range that would be a tempting option though. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:40:36 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by jrs915:
alright, I think I've made a decision...
1: Canon 70-200mm F4L lens with 2x kenko TC adaptor. I feel this should give me a great lens for the 70-200mm, and in the instances where I might need up to 400mm, a nice lens that in good light could even be handheld, without much quality loss from what I've seen.
|
That lens will not work with 2X adaptor,1.4 adaptor will give you 280 mm at F5.6 and that will work... |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 11:18:46 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by jrs915:
alright, I think I've made a decision...
1: Canon 70-200mm F4L lens with 2x kenko TC adaptor. I feel this should give me a great lens for the 70-200mm, and in the instances where I might need up to 400mm, a nice lens that in good light could even be handheld, without much quality loss from what I've seen.
|
That lens will not work with 2X adaptor,1.4 adaptor will give you 280 mm at F5.6 and that will work... |
You sure? It is listed as compatible on the Canon 2x converter page - although according to the footnotes I am not sure autofocus would work. But it would still function with manual focus.
//www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon2xExtender.html
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 11:28:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by jrs915:
alright, I think I've made a decision...
1: Canon 70-200mm F4L lens with 2x kenko TC adaptor. I feel this should give me a great lens for the 70-200mm, and in the instances where I might need up to 400mm, a nice lens that in good light could even be handheld, without much quality loss from what I've seen.
|
That lens will not work with 2X adaptor,1.4 adaptor will give you 280 mm at F5.6 and that will work... |
You sure? It is listed as compatible on the Canon 2x converter page - although according to the footnotes I am not sure autofocus would work. But it would still function with manual focus.
//www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon2xExtender.html |
If you own Canon 1D
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 23:28:55. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 11:28:39 PM · #44 |
The answer is "it depends".
First, the chart you quoted is specifically for the Canon 2X teleconverter. Canon's TC's have a protruding front element, so they can only be mated to Canon lenses that have enough depth in the back of the lens for this element to go into. This supposedly provides better optical quality. You can read more about the Canon TC's here and here.
Second, Canon's non-pro bodies (like the 300D and 10D) are rated to only autofocus with lenses that are f/5.6 and faster (that is, their maximum aperture is f/5.6 or bigger, which means the f-number of the lens is less than or equal to f/5.6). Some lenses and teleconverters "fake out" the camera by providing bogus data to the camera about the maximum aperture so the AF tries to continue operating. If not, there are some pins on the lens mount that you can put electrical tape over to "fake out" the camera so the AF tries to operate even on "slow" lenses.
I don't have any experience with the Kenko 2X TC, so I can't provide any hard data, but I just wanted to mention the above.
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 23:30:36. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:53:19 AM · #45 |
I already have a canon EF 28-80 f2.8 lens from my 35mm (is that any good).
I'm looking at Tamron's AF19-35mm F/3.5-4.5 lens and I was hoping someone could tell me if I'm steering in the wrong direction
I'm looking to use it for semi clos up action shots and I need the wide angle, it's about $220 cheaper than the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX that was recomended to me...
If this is not, could you explain to me what makes it not sucha hot lens for my purpose... Mucho gracias!
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 14:24:15.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 02:12:22 PM · #46 |
Does anyone have any experience with the Tamron 17-35mm zoom? It has gotten good reviews from what I have seen.
I have a 10D with a 70-20mm F/4L, a 50mm 1.8, and an ef 35mm f/2. I need a wide angle for weddings and landscape shots. Should I invest a little more and stick with a Canon L series or do you think this is a good quality lens?
Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 02:36:28 PM · #47 |
| I don't have any experience with the Tamron, but if f/4 is fast enough for you, the Canon 17-40/4L is an excellent value that seems well-regarded by most users. |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 02:57:00 PM · #48 |
Unless you have intentionally narrowed your focal length to a specific range (due to shooting style and intended subject matter), then the majority of photographers need lense abilities ofr wide angle, mid range, and telephoto.
The single best lense to own (especially if you can only own 1) is the sf (single focal) 50mm 1.8. This covers all your midrange fl's and with cropfactors can sub as portrait and macro. A few steps forward or a few steps backwards and you now have a "foot operated" zoom. 1 lense, $100 bucks, unparallelled versatility.
THEN, decide wide angle's and tele's. For film cameras, 28mm wide angles are plenty sufficient. But with crop factors on digital bodies, wide angle zooms in the 17-19mm starting range are a better option. For tele's, it is simply a matter of understanding the "real" limitations of the lense that you have. 200-400mm long ends can be plenty or not even close to being long enough.....depending on your subject.
Decide on your body, 300D or 10D, pick up a sf50mm and shoot. Then decide what pictures you can't get, and buy the lense to satisfy that need. Minimal initial lense investment and assuredly will enhance your photography.
Flash
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 03:40:08 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
if f/4 is fast enough for you, the Canon 17-40/4L is an excellent value that seems well-regarded by most users. |
I have this lens and it is sharp and lovely. It produces great work but its usefulness depends on how much light you can get for your wedding setups. If you're mainly inside places with stained glass, low lighting and no lights of your own, you're gonna have to go with something else. You can, of course, supply your own lights to compensate for the f/4 (or stopping it down even lower to add a little to the sharpness and contrast). Out-of-doors I love this lens. It's built like a little tank and it produces. If you shoot your weddings indoors and with little available light, tho, you might be better off getting one of the WA primes and moving up and back to get the right WA shot.
Kev
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 04:23:23 PM · #50 |
My advice would be to start out with as few lenses as possible and then buy additional lenses based on what you find lacking in that particular lens. You may be surprised with the performance of the kit lens, for example, if you buy a 300D. I started out with the 50 1.4 and was perfectly happy with that one as a walk-around. If you could only get one lens to start and learn on, I'd advise someone to by a 35 F2 (closest to normal on a 35mm and fast aperture) if they get a 10D - the kit lens is a no-brainer with the 300D.
If I had to do it all again, the 17-40 F4L, 50 1.4 and 70-200 F4L are three lenses I have and are the three lenses that I tend to use regularly. They are outstanding, and cover a wide range that will be useful even if I upgrade to a 1.3x or full-frame body in the future. The other two are a 28/2.8 and a 28-105 3.5-4.5 and I use them sparingly since buying the 17-40. If I had to do it again, I'd perhaps get a very bright, wider lens like a 28/1.8 or a 35/2 for a normal lens (35mm equivalent) instead of getting the 28 or the 28-105. I find the 28-105 isn't wide enough in a lot of situations. It would be a great all-rounder on a 35mm body, but the crop leaves it lacking on the wide end. The 28 2.8 is a fabulous lens, but is too close to the performance of the 17-40 at 28 to really stand out...only one stop. I'm thinking of trading for a 35/2, which would give me a 2 stop gain and would be worth my while swapping in low light.
Teleconverters are a solution that work better with the better, longer lenses in the 300-600 range. The 1.4x is generally regarded to be very useful on all lenses that it fits, in that it hardly degrades the image quality at all, but the 2x noticeably softens the image...enough that there is a good argument that resampling might be a viable alternative.
Message edited by author 2004-04-20 16:41:19. |
|
