| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/28/2005 10:47:08 PM · #26 |
I decided to put scenery on the backburner for a while. I can always do a panorama if I had to. I take more photos of animals and people than anything else. And, low light is always a factor.
I also looked up some reviews on the IS vs non-IS, and found the IS to be VERY valuable! It seems to be just as clear as the non-IS with the new release. This lens has been released with a better IS I guess. I don't know. Here's some reviews...
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&cat=27&page=1
Originally posted by yido:
Arie,
You are all over the place.
You should first decide what type or types of photography you want to do and then go from there.
If you want the most bang for the bucks,
I'd recommend selling all your lenses
then getting a Tamron 17-35 or Canon 10-22 for landscape
Tamron 28-75 for walking around
and a Canon 70-200 for sports/portraits/animals |
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 10:47:11 PM · #27 |
Hmmm, well, the 24-105 is a very good lens, covers a lot of range at reasonable weight, and has IS to boot. It's still just f/4 though, and though the IS is nice (wouldn't trade my 70-200IS lens for anything) if I had to decide between IS and f/2.8, I'd take f/2.8 any day of the week.
Your weakest area right now is the telephoto end. The 70-200/2.8 would be such a quantum leap forward there it isn't even funny. It will handle the 1.4 converter pretty well, with very little effect on sharpness. I have the Tamron 1.4x converter, and if you want I can take a shot with the 70-200 and the 1.4x with the 10D to give you an idea of the resultant IQ. Where I'd find a subject in Wisconsin in November that doesn't make me say "blah" is another challenge, LOL.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 10:51:37 PM · #28 |
I got Cyberpack 6. Don't recommend it unless you plan on carrying a 20D with a grip and a laptop. You can get a smaller pack with room to carry just as much gear if you don't need to carry a laptop and if you don't plan on getting a grip. Check the Tamrac website for more options.
If you want to get some accessories and a "fantastic" lens, then you should decide what type of a lens you want the most. With a backpack, ND filter, and a few other stuff, you should have enough money for 1 or 2 lenses. I'd still recommend either a Tamron 17-35 or a Canon 10-22 and a Canon 70-200 f2.8L or a Sigma 70-200 if the money is tight.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 10:55:30 PM · #29 |
Okay, good points... i am going with the 70-200 2.8 USM IS I think. Now, with about $400 left, I need a backpack, maybe the 1.4x converter, an ND filter and a polarizer. I need more money! haha
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 11:07:47 PM · #30 |
Arie,
The FM reviews are a subjective rating by it's members, nothing more. It is not a scientific or a controlled review such as PopPhoto or Photozone.de.
If you check out photozone.de, you will see that the IS versions of 70-200 and the 300 both are softer due to the extra IS element.
What do you intend to shoot with the 70-200? If the subject moves, then no IS will help you, unless you are panning. If you regularly need to shoot stationary subject in a dark place, or pan moving subjects, then the IS maybe worth it. I personally think the $500 difference could be better used on a either a wide to mid range zoom or a walking around 20-70ish lens.
Take your time, look at what type of stuff you want to shoot and go from there. You can always keep the kit lens if you want just a zoom or vice versa. Just sell my zoom for me if you get a 70-200 b/c you won't need the 50-200 then.
Good luck
here, check these out
//www.photo.net/equipment/canon/tc1/
//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28/index.htm
//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm
Message edited by author 2005-11-28 23:16:18.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 11:11:21 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Okay, good points... i am going with the 70-200 2.8 USM IS I think. Now, with about $400 left, I need a backpack, maybe the 1.4x converter, an ND filter and a polarizer. I need more money! haha |
Ah, the IS version, eh? Well, you certainly will be in love when you get to work with that one! One bit of advice though... I'd be remiss if I didn't suggest a trip over to Samy's (closest good shop to you, no?) and check out the weight, make sure you're OK with that. I don't think you'll find it too unweildy, but opinions vary. I regularly carry it for hours, no complaints here.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 11:18:53 PM · #32 |
Canon 24-104 f/4L ($1250)
Canon 200mm f/2.8 ($635)
Tamron 1.4x TC ($110)
Kenko 25mm Extension tube ($70)
Sell your other lenses and/or save up for a Tokina 12-24 f/4 |
|
|
|
11/28/2005 11:38:56 PM · #33 |
The Sigma 70-210mm f2.8 is sharper than any of the Canon versions of this lens when used at 200mm and between f2.8 and f8.0
If you truly want sharp, contrasty images while using wide apertures at the extreme tele end, (as stated in you original post), then buy the Sigma at half the price of the Canon L IS version and get sharper results. These sharper results are measureable, reportable and viewable via MTF scores at photodo. Although MTF isn't everything it's also widely reported that the Sigma has a more neutral color cast than the slightly warmer Canon L lenses.
Go this route and you've then saved yourself some room in your budget for a WA zoom for landscapes and a 50mm prime for portraits. Get the budget 50mm f1.8 and you may even have room for a dedicated macro.
Of course this would all change "if" you had a larger budget or you had a preference for primes. Generally speaking, primes will beat the pants off a zoom any day of the week.
bazz. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 12:48:01 AM · #34 |
bazz, photodo also says that the 70-200 lenses and the 80-200 are sharper than the canon 200L 2.8 prime. If you ask somebody who owns both the prime and one of the zooms which has better picture quality, they'll say the prime. Some even say it's on par with the almost legendary 135L 2.0. But according to photodo, the zooms beat the prime.
"THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BY PHOTODO "AS IS" AND "WITH ALL FAULTS." PHOTODO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR SUITABILITY OF THE INFORMATION, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE"
I the most recent update i found was almost 6 years ago. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:33:20 AM · #35 |
Hi kyebosh
Agreed...and I did state that MTF isn't everything :)
But to complicate things further there are generally subtle differences even between samples of the same lens.
I've often seen Canon lenses advertised on the 2nd hand market preceeded with the phrase "sharp copy". The problem is compounded further by the less stringent QC processes of aftermarket lens makers.
It's a shame that photodo isn't up to date as it would interesting to see MTF results for the newer made for digital lenses. It would be a superb reference for internet users and I'd be especially interested in seeing how the new 4/3 system lenses really perform.
And as for the Zoom Vs Prime lets pick the 200L 1.8 USM as the winner and be done with it.
cheers,
bazz.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 06:28:15 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Originally posted by faidoi:
No Macro lens? |
I'd love macro! I don't know if I can do it right now though. I use my diopters all the time and do pretty well with them. I don't know :( |
If you're getting the 70-200 IS, you could get a Canon 500D to go with it for macro. It's an addition I'm thinking of, which will give me half-decent macro capability and I'll be able to sell the Canon macro lens which I bought on a whim and that I hardly ever use.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 06:58:27 AM · #37 |
i just bought the tamron 17-35 2.8 and WOW... to be honest i hate and haven't really taken it off the camera.. well o.k twice to borrow my uncle's simga 10-20 ( also awsome )
i just love the lens.. so sharp and clear....
congrats on the bonus... you must be loving that you can spend it onl lenses....
:):)
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:00:49 AM · #38 |
I just replaced all my glass except for 1:
Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro (one I kept) excellent Macro, fast, sharp. If I could only have one lens, this would be it. Use it for portraits and studio shots. And macros of course. :)
Replaced:
Canon 28-80 with Tamron 28-75 2.8. Next to the Tamron, the Canon was horrible - worked for DPC size but I couldn't blow it up at all.
Canon 75-300 USM with Canon 100-400L IS. There is no comparison. The 75-300 is like looking through leaded glass when compared, so soft at full size prints. Went to the zoo with 100-400 and was like a kid in a candy store. Very heavy, but used a monopod.
Sigma 17-35 EX 2.8-4 replaced by Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. The Sigma broke. It was also bigger and heavier than the Tamron. Tamron sharp. This was almost even up, though many people disagree with the quality of the Sigma.
Rebates abound right now on Tamron and Canon. total cost: $2100.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 10:52:53 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I decided to put scenery on the backburner for a while. I can always do a panorama if I had to. I take more photos of animals and people than anything else. And, low light is always a factor.
|
Since you're taking photos of animals and low light is a factor, and you have $2,000 to spend, how about the Sigma APO 120-300mm F2.8 EX IF HSM?
Also, consider the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC for the wide end. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:20:29 AM · #40 |
The lenses you currently have are pretty crappy. I would hold off buying a body and upgrade your lenses.
You'll have to make a dicision between primes and zooms. I would go with zooms since you have a digital body. With primes, you'll have to change lenses alot and introduce more dust onto your sensor.
If you really want to take a leap, spend the cash on the 70-200 IS. It weighs a lot, but would be worth it. Otherwise, you can get the 24-70f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 (without IS).
Don't forget, rent it before you buy it. That way you can try them out. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 04:36:32 PM · #41 |
I went to Samy's at lunch and talked to some of the Canon users there. I also tried the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM. It was amazing! Everyone there loves it too. They said that they've read tests both ways (clarity), but they trust results and they see excellent results with the IS. Truly, the IS was impressive!!! It focused sooooooo fast too, with no shake! I love it. I am so getting that lens!
While there, I tried the Tamaron 17-35. It was fast, really nice and very clear. It was a good weight and I know I love the photos Tom takes with it. So, I may forego the 1.4x extender and something else in hopes of making that lens fit my bill. Gonna have to see. I don't have my bonus in hand yet. I am hoping to have it next week!!!
Samy's isn't a fan of Cokin. They use some "L...." system (that someone here mentioned) that has very nice glass. It's a bit bulky though. I am unsure about that. I was talked into a monopod though. Using it made the camera sooooo much lighter with the 70-200! This is where i look at myself and ask "am I a hobbyist or going semi-pro"? All that equipment, just to go to the zoo?! Haha.
I liked the Tarmac bag I tried. It was $89 and would fit the camera body with the 70-200 plus some extra lenses. I like backpacks. I don't mind pulling them off and on. I have issues with ergonomics and when things are not weighted right, I tend to slow down a lot. With my current backpack, I can walk for hours and hours - unlike my old shoulder bag.
Okay, we are getting somewhere... i think!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 04:50:21 PM · #42 |
Wow, I did not realize that the price of the Tammy 17-35 2.8-4 was $500. I guess that is a little stretch getting it into your budget when combined with the 70-200 IS. I don't think you'd be dislpeased with the results, though it does sound like you will need to keep the 28-80 to cover the midrange. Perhaps stretch things just a bit more and add the 50/1.8 for $75?
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 05:03:29 PM · #43 |
We'll see if I can fit the Tam. I am going to do my very best to try! I need to research prices for reserves and put my 18-35mm up on ebay. I don't think I can do the 50mm 1.8 yet. I never use my 28-80, so I don't feel a loss for those ranges. I know a prime would be nice, but I'll have to see if I get another bonus next year! haha. Perhaps I'll just try to win the lotto and buy a new camera body as well :) Ah, I can only dream!
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 01:57:22 AM · #44 |
Hi Again,
So, the 70-200 USM IS is 100%
Now, the Tamron 17-35mm or the 28-75mm... which is better for me?
I own the Canon crappy kit: 18-35mm and the crappy canon 28-80mm. Which is better? I think the kit is better glass. So, should I keep that and get the Tamron 28-75? Oh, questions questions! ;)
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 02:09:00 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Hi Again,
So, the 70-200 USM IS is 100%
Now, the Tamron 17-35mm or the 28-75mm... which is better for me?
I own the Canon crappy kit: 18-35mm and the crappy canon 28-80mm. Which is better? I think the kit is better glass. So, should I keep that and get the Tamron 28-75? Oh, questions questions! ;) |
I'd say so, yes. And your next step would be to get something in the ultra-wide zoom range (10-22, 12-24, like that) and retire the kit lens. The Tamron 28-75mm is just too nice a lens not to get. It's the only non-Canon lens I own, and it's the lens I use for easily 60-75% of my shots. It'll focus down to 1:2 semi-macro from any point int he zoom range, so it's incredibly versatile.
I'm very, very impressed with my Canon 10-22mm zoom, which is my most-favorite lens and takes many of my most striking images, but it's a pretty limited range. The 70-200 I use relatively rarely, and the 60mm macro only for true macro work, which I haven't been doing much of but probably will start doing now that winter is setting in.
R. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 02:11:02 AM · #46 |
Okay, good points. However, which is a better lens: the Tamron 17-35mm or the 28-75mm (aspherical (if) of course).
Are they equal? If one is better, that may sway me... hmm.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 02:58:42 AM · #47 |
Both are very well-reviewed. Both score in the high 8's at Fred Miranda's user ratings, an excellent score for non-L glass in that site. I just feel that the 17mm really isn't wide enough to be extremely useful. It's the equivalent of 28mm on a film SLR, only a moderate wide angle. And if you ever DO get a truly wide zoom, it's gonna overlap a LOT with this lens. I think the 28-75 is more versatile in the long run.
That's just my opinion, though. Remember you've already GOT 18mm right now, so you know what that's like. If that's as wide as you ever want to go... But even then, this lens stops at 40mm, so it has LESS zoom than the kit lens, and when you get your 70-200mm there's this HOLE there, ya know?
R. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 07:13:22 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Okay, good points. However, which is a better lens: the Tamron 17-35mm or the 28-75mm (aspherical (if) of course).
Are they equal? If one is better, that may sway me... hmm. |
I have both. I use the 17-35 inside small rooms and on landscapes. I use the 28-75 as an everyday walk around lens. I use the 28-75 more often.
I had the Canon 28-80 and thought it was an okay lens until I actually used the Tamron lens. The Canon's slowness and softness was a huge hinderance that I didn't realize I had until I got the better faster lens. There are so many more images I am able to capture now... :)
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 08:50:35 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Wow, I did not realize that the price of the Tammy 17-35 2.8-4 was $500. I guess that is a little stretch getting it into your budget when combined with the 70-200 IS. I don't think you'd be dislpeased with the results, though it does sound like you will need to keep the 28-80 to cover the midrange. Perhaps stretch things just a bit more and add the 50/1.8 for $75? |
I have that setup almost exactly. Tammy 17-35, 80-200L 2.8, and 50 1.8. I have been considering a middle zoom, but I really don't need it with this lens list. You don't need to cover ever focal length. Heck i've been considering a jump to some primes, just wish i had the money. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 05:06:32 PM · #50 |
I wish I had a wide angle! I love scenery shots, but the kit just isn't making me happy. It's not as fast or clear as I'd like. I hardly ever use my canon 28-80, but I think it's because it's so crappily fuzzy (imo). I am leaning toward the wider one, because it will be at least a year or more before I can get another bonus (and maybe a good wide angle). So, I am deeply considering the Tam 17-35 (di aspher. IF) right now and maybe the Canon 24-105 $1200 next bonus (next christmas). Any thoughts?
|
|
