| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2005 09:20:30 PM · #1 |
Hi i am new to this site i am about to purchase a 350d body only whats the best lense for me to get i will be using it for action shots marlin fishing sky shots and pictures of the kids.
Thanks for help Nick |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:20:46 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:24:25 PM · #3 |
was thinking about the canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Nick |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:25:39 PM · #4 |
May depend on what you may or like to shoot too.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:29:01 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:32:09 PM · #6 |
canon 600mm F/4 IS USM
That's about a $10,000 lens isn't it? |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:35:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Jbchess1:
canon 600mm F/4 IS USM
That's about a $10,000 lens isn't it? |
7000-8000
try getting a prime lens, prime lenses have their own level of sharpness. if you have the money try out the 24-70 2.8 L or getting a the tamron 28-75 2.8 for a lot less money
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 09:44:51 PM · #8 |
Sigma 17-50ex, Sigma 24-60ex or tamron 28-75 2.8 di.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 10:41:11 PM · #9 |
Don't even think about getting a 28-something zoom lens as your first and walk-around lens. You're limiting yourself severely.
After the crop factor, that lens becomes a 45mm...you'd seriously be better off just getting a 50mm f/1.8 (which translates to a 80 f/1.8 on your camera). At least then it's a decent piece of glass and will have a permanent home in your camera bag. That 28-135 will soon find it's way to a spot in your bag to never be touched again once you get something around 18-60 and something 70-200'ish.
If you're going to get a zoom, make sure it starts in the 17mm or 18mm range. Otherwise, with that crop factor, there's just no real point and you're going to lose out on so much it's not funny. What's wrong with the 18-55 kit lens? That's a great walk-around lens and if I were you, I'd seriously consider getting it in the kit.
Otherwise, if you have some money, get the Canon 17-40.
Just my $.02
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 10:42:18 PM · #10 |
I got the 350D recently with the kit lens. I recently sold the lens and am getting the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical. It's supposed to be a great lens, and very sharp. I would like more range, but will not compromise quality for it. I will add a longer zoom later.
Edit: I have the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 until I can get the Tamron.
Message edited by author 2005-06-28 22:43:27.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 10:44:21 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Don't even think about getting a 28-something zoom lens as your first and walk-around lens. You're limiting yourself severely.
After the crop factor, that lens becomes a 45mm...you'd seriously be better off just getting a 50mm f/1.8 (which translates to a 80 f/1.8 on your camera). At least then it's a decent piece of glass and will have a permanent home in your camera bag. That 28-135 will soon find it's way to a spot in your bag to never be touched again once you get something around 18-60 and something 70-200'ish.
If you're going to get a zoom, make sure it starts in the 17mm or 18mm range. Otherwise, with that crop factor, there's just no real point and you're going to lose out on so much it's not funny. What's wrong with the 18-55 kit lens? That's a great walk-around lens and if I were you, I'd seriously consider getting it in the kit.
Otherwise, if you have some money, get the Canon 17-40.
Just my $.02 |
I don't entirely agree with this. When i'm outside I almost always find myself with the 80-200 on or the 100 macro. Suggesting the 50mm is even less versitile than the 28-75! It really depends on what the subject is. However, the kit lens is a good cheap way to start.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 11:03:41 PM · #12 |
Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC lens is a gret walk around lens, great lens period. The speed and sharpness, the range..good choice. No IS needed at this focal length most of the time. I can handhold it at the wider end to 1/15 sec most of hte time, 1/30 no problem. Add in ISO 800 and it is pretty dark and you still get your shot.
If you need longer reach, then a second lens...low budget get a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO Super Macro 2 or if you have mo money canon's 70-200 f4 is nice.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 11:17:25 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by BlackNBlue:
Hi i am new to this site i am about to purchase a 350d body only whats the best lense for me to get i will be using it for action shots marlin fishing sky shots and pictures of the kids.
Thanks for help Nick |
As you mention the 28-135IS, I have to say that it is perhaps my most used lens. The range is a big plus as far as I am concerned (the fast focussing is a big plus also). I know that plenty of other people prefer a lens to be wider, but I have not found this lens to be too limiting. Perhaps you should get the camera with the kit lens (at not too much of a price premium) and see how your shooting develops. Then you would be best placed to decide whether you need the wide angle or whether a longer lens would suit.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 11:44:50 PM · #14 |
| Another vote for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di. After that, my second choice would be the Canon 17-85 EF-S... it has a better zoom range and image stabilization, but it's almost twice the price. |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 08:20:16 AM · #15 |
| thanks Guys i have just purchased the 350d body only so am looking for my first lense so keep the thoughs coming Thanks Nick |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 08:38:49 AM · #16 |
I love my canon efs 17-85 IS. I rarely take it off my camera. It is the cornerstone to my photography. Pretty sharp, and I use the IS more than I would have thought. It goes wide and I love that. I can't say enough how much I love this lens. The range is great and it is relatively light.
drake |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:14:18 PM · #17 |
Nick,
For your first lens, a "walking around" lens would be recommended for gernal purpose shooting. If you are thinking about the 28-135 IS, then I'll assume you are looking into mid $400 range.
The Canon 28-135 IS is a nice lens but it is slow. You can use the IS to compensate but if the subject is moving in an action shot, it will not help. I have this lens and often wish for more wider angle coverage.
The Tamron 28-75 XR Di f2.8 is a very nice lens, I think it's sharper than the above Canon and it's "faster" and hence better for action shots in dim light and for blurring the background in portraits. However, it has less range and still starts at only 28mm.
Other options to maybe consider in this price range are Canon 17-85 IS (mixed reviews and about $650, but has a nice range). Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8 (fast and has good wide angle coverage but less range), Sigma 18-125 (cheaper and has more range but not as good optically), and Sigma 28-60 EX f2.8 (nice lens, not too many have it but has a shorter range than Tamron).
I'd avoid the ultra zooms like 18-200 or 28-300 as they are not as good optically.
You'll have to decide on what range, speed of the lens, and price best fits your photographic needs and go from there.
Good luck
Message edited by author 2005-06-29 13:45:27.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:25:03 PM · #18 |
I just bought the 28-135 IS as a lens to use when I'm not using primes (family and friends snapshots and such) ... I stinkin' love it.
But I also know you can't go wrong with the Tamron 28-75, it's also well loved by others.
Why not just get the kit lens and than decide which range you find yourself using most ... then buy a lens accordingly (for instance, I simply don't use the 17 to 28 range, so there's really never a need for me to buy the 17-40L or similar, but I didn't know that until I got out and started taking pictures). |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:25:49 PM · #19 |
In my purchase dealings with Dell, I was forced to get the Rebel XT with the kit lens, even though I planned to use my Sigma 18-125 as my general purpose lens.
So if anyone want's to buy my 18-55 mm kit lens from my Canon Rebel XT, PM me with a reasonable offer. This lens is still in the wrapper and never used (just a couple of weeks since I received it as well.)
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:30:32 PM · #20 |
My first lens was the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III. I actually really liked this lens starting out, but I rarely use it anymore because of the other lenses I have picked u p…. I actually don’t even keep it in my bag anymore. I used it quite often when taking pictures at my softball games and it really captured the action well, so it is a nice lens if the light is good. It’s also pretty cheap!
I have the 28-135 IS and I use it a lot. For a first lens it would be just about perfect. I didn't really like it when I first got it, but I have grown to like it a lot because of its versatility.
However, my favorite lens I own is my Canon 85mm 1.8, but it really limits you.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:40:17 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
In my purchase dealings with Dell, I was forced to get the Rebel XT with the kit lens, even though I planned to use my Sigma 18-125 as my general purpose lens.
So if anyone want's to buy my 18-55 mm kit lens from my Canon Rebel XT, PM me with a reasonable offer. This lens is still in the wrapper and never used (just a couple of weeks since I received it as well.) |
Put your kit lens on ebay...just got £90 for mine!!
Steve |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:47:22 PM · #22 |
EF 70-200 f4L. I absolutely agree with Gordon on this thread about this same subject, it does it all. The more I use it, the more I love it.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 01:49:29 PM · #23 |
depends on how fast your kids move. the 70-200 f/4 would be a good choice i think. that lens is 560 ish
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 12:28:06 AM EDT.
