buying new lens this week, recommendations.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/08/2006 12:39:53 PM · #1

I shoot canon. I want a new lens. I already have a 50mm f1.8, and the kit lens which kind of sucks because of how slow. I want a good all around lens that will give me the most use. I typically shoot live music, landscape, some macro. I recently sold my sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 because it wasn't getting much use and it is slow.

I can pretty much count out any of the 200mm or 300mm lens because for what I want I can't afford. I want to spend $300-$500.

If you were a serious amatuer w/ aspirations of greatness, which lens would be most utilized. Please give me suggestions and reason why. All info is appreciated, I have a few in mind, but I want to know from people who were in my shoes at one time what they think would be suit me and my wallet.

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

05/08/2006 12:41:24 PM · #2

Keep the 50 1.8 and save up some more, if you are a serious as you want to be, save save save

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/08/2006 12:43:22 PM · #3

If you are looking for a good prime to go along with that 50mm

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=15

My next lens and probably a good wald around for you:

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=792

Message edited by author 2006-05-08 12:43:39.

Count

Canon EOS-30D

05/08/2006 12:46:54 PM · #4

Tamron 28-75 2.8

Does well for landscape and would probably be good for live music unless you have to have more reach. Focuses at 13" at all focal lengths and can be used for macro.

I think they're at B&H for less than $400...

PS> Rex beat me to it!

Message edited by author 2006-05-08 12:48:09.

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

05/08/2006 12:49:18 PM · #5

Originally posted by Count:

I think they're at B&H for less than $400...

PS> Rex beat me to it!

$379.00

cresus

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

05/08/2006 02:03:57 PM · #6

Tamron 28-75 = AWESOME!

Bear_Music

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

05/08/2006 02:16:04 PM · #7

Originally posted by cresus:

Tamron 28-75 = AWESOME!

Agreed. Awesome lens for the price. My most-used lens. If I could only KEEP one lens for the rest of my life I'd keep the 10-22mm, but that's because I'd be lost without it. I live for WIDE. Even so, I use the 28-75mm Tammy at least half the time I shoot, Maybe a third of my shots are the 10-22, and most of the rest with the 70-200mm. I rarely use my 60mm f/2.8 EF-S macro, just because I rarely shoot as close as 1:1, and the Tammy's 1:2 is plenty close for nearly every "macro" I do.

R.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/08/2006 02:20:14 PM · #8

I got the Tamron 28-75,60mm macro, and the Canon 10-22 on my wishlist at B & H.

Should I just forget about the 60mm?

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

05/08/2006 02:20:44 PM · #9

The Canon 28-135 IS might be worth considering. Not fast, but IS helps. I think they are about $430.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

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

05/08/2006 02:27:08 PM · #10

Originally posted by rex:

I got the Tamron 28-75,60mm macro, and the Canon 10-22 on my wishlist at B & H.

Should I just forget about the 60mm?

Depends how important extreme close-up is to you. I love the lens, I just don't use it much. It's a hell of a portrait lens too, but I don't hardly ever do portraits. If you want to buy it from me, I'm open to bargaining :-) I even have a polarizer for it (52mm thread, the only one in my bag that size).

R.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/08/2006 03:08:30 PM · #11

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by rex:
I got the Tamron 28-75,60mm macro, and the Canon 10-22 on my wishlist at B & H.

Should I just forget about the 60mm?

Depends how important extreme close-up is to you. I love the lens, I just don't use it much. It's a hell of a portrait lens too, but I don't hardly ever do portraits. If you want to buy it from me, I'm open to bargaining :-) I even have a polarizer for it (52mm thread, the only one in my bag that size).

R.

I already got the 85mm. Which IMO is a killer portrait lens. How close can you get with the Tamron versus the 60mm Macro?

k4ffy

05/08/2006 03:10:25 PM · #12

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:

I have the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC, which is quite a good lens, especially for the price (about $280)

Message edited by author 2006-05-08 15:10:38.

TNCameron

Canon EOS-20D

05/08/2006 03:17:00 PM · #13

I just got my new Tamron 28-75,
first impressions are awesome altho the zoom zooms(?) to the left instead of the right like the canons which i'll get used to quickly.
Oh and the zoom is pretty stiff also but that'll loosen up over time.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

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

05/08/2006 04:01:05 PM · #14

Originally posted by rex:

I already got the 85mm. Which IMO is a killer portrait lens. How close can you get with the Tamron versus the 60mm Macro?

"True" macro (which the 60mm is) renders the image 1:1 on the film/sensor. In other words, if you had a Canon APS-C sensor on a white sheet and shot it at 1:1, the photographed sensor would fill the entire image space, no white would show.

The Tamron goes down to 1:2, which means half the image captured would be the photographed sensor and the other half would be a border of white around it.

I gotta run now, but if nobody else does it I'll shoot the same thing with both lenses a little later so you can see.

R.

Aeroglyphics

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/08/2006 04:15:01 PM · #15

I'm going to be getting a new lense myself. Is the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG for Canon considered more of a macro lense?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/08/2006 05:23:33 PM · #16

I dumped my 28-135IS for the Tamron 28-75 f 2.8. I don't regret it for an instant. The finder image is so much brighter and the images are much sharper.

Of course the Tamron isn't as long, but the 75-135 portion is covered by my 70-200. As for the IS, it was OK, but the 28-135 has 1st gen IS and it doesn't really do much for you at the wider end of things. I don't miss it. I think it really helps on long lenses.

Prof_Fate

05/08/2006 05:30:59 PM · #17

sigma 18-50 2.8 EX
sigma 17-70 2.8-4
later this month the tamron 17-50 2.8 SP should be great.
tokina 12-24 f4 pro - fantastic lens.
all under $500.

look around for a tamron 70-210 2.8 SP LD - very good and under $500 used (not made new anymore). EXCELLENT lens, probably my fave now!
ALL these shots with it
//cpphoto.home.comcast.net/maria/
and this is a processed one:

Message edited by author 2006-05-08 17:31:12.

PhotoRyno

Canon EOS-5D

05/08/2006 05:49:15 PM · #18

I will sell you my Canon 28-135IS if you want. PM me if you want additional info.

05/09/2006 10:38:20 AM · #19

thanks for your opinions, I bought a canon 100mm f/2.8 usm macro.

Prof_Fate

05/09/2006 11:42:28 AM · #20

You're gonna like that lens. I borrowed one for a day from a friend...it's on my list of things to get one day.

05/09/2006 12:24:51 PM · #21

i think ill like it, the photos Ive seen are great, and it really is my first good lens. Of course I did what I was trying not to do, I have a budget of $400 at the absolute most. Well absolute turned into relative and I spent another $80 over my limit. Why do I need to always go the extra yard? Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

05/11/2006 08:03:23 PM · #22

i would look at the sigma 70-200mm 2.8. it's about half the price of the canon, but very good, i've heard